To be very glad the judge ruled properly on Self ID and sex for the census?

[ItscoldinAlaska]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0ARobpxFavIo53e2Pu6v4laOlBOGfwuEwkQmjOuG52F04-N6RXK1jsBx4#Echobox=1615318013

I have shared the FB link as the comments are eye opening. According to advisory guidance (before this ruling) the Census was advising that documentation that allows Self ID (e.g. a passport or driving licence) could inform the answer to sex on the census. This was challenged by an organisation that stated it was self ID through the back door. The judge ruled (correctly IMO) to change the wording. The advice states that you should put the assigned sex at birth and the sex you were registered as (on your birth certificate) should be used, a binary choice of F/M.

Later on in the census there is an option to state your gender. AIBU to think that if you are gathering statistics on sex, counting sex accurately is really important to inform policies? To account for how many females and males there are in an area is really important? The comments section has people who are stating that the numbers are so small it doesn't matter? Accuracy matters doesn't it? Or am I missing something? I am a health researcher. If you add skew into it, it leads to a lack of robust data and interrogation? There is an option to state your gender, so why is it trans phobic to give a binary option for sex? (Which is what the comments section debate was. Lots of TERF and Bigot being thrown at people like me, who thought statistical validity is important).

It's a great result

I would have thought it was a vital statistic for healthcare for trans people too, there are currently complaints that services in that area are too stretched, if there were some decent stats, there might be a chance of provision matching need.

It is critical that organisations are not permitted to redefine what sex means.

It’s a great first step in dismantling an alarming trend to do just that.

Great result

Fantastic news. Glad that sex has been reinstated on the census.

It is so very important if statistics are to mean anything. A very well done and thank you to that organisation.

Really important that the census information is clear and accurate. Allowing confusion into several categories by being unclear which category is about sex and which is about gender and trans would lead to confusion and inaccuracies.

It’s a fantastic result! We need accurate data on sex and the number of trans individuals

I can’t imagine what the ONS thought they were doing!

During the night I noted that BBC teleext were reporting that ONS were still claiming they were asking the same question as they always had! So bloody disingenuous.

It’s a great result, not that women should have had to fundraise to get it.

If sex isn’t accurately recorded, how will statisticians know how many transpeople there are in the country? It’s important to know these things for population planning. You’d think there was something certain lobby groups wish to hide or obscure.

Fantastic result. Well done Fair Play for Women

It just baffles me why the ONS, a statistical authority, would even contemplate undermining their statistical validity! Bonkers.

The advice states that you should put the assigned sex at birth

Did they actually use those words? Just that sex isn’t “assigned”, as I think surely everyone knows by now, even if they don’t like to admit it.

Great result!

@FamilyOfAliens

The advice states that you should put the assigned sex at birth

Did they actually use those words? Just that sex isn’t “assigned”, as I think surely everyone knows by now, even if they don’t like to admit it.

Good

Because if you ask transpeople what their sex is and what their sex 'assigned' at birth was (or registered at birth), you could get 2 different answers.

Great news!

@ItscoldinAlaska

It just baffles me why the ONS, a statistical authority, would even contemplate undermining their statistical validity! Bonkers.

This basically

Brilliant result. Well done FPFW.
Would be even more accurate if ONS changed it so that sex question simply said birth certificate, and those with a GRC were instead included in the gender identity question, ie if your gender identity is different to yourself registered at birth, or if you have a GRC. But there’s probably fat chance of that so we’ll take what we can get.

Excellent news! And YANBU at all of course.

It's a good result, but I don't know how I can answer the question on gender identity. I don't feel I have one, nor that the performance of sex stereotypes is relevant.

Very grateful to Fair Play for their efforts here.

It really annoys me that as a tax payer I’m paying for this very sensible verdict multiple times. The taxpayer funds Stonewall, which advised the ONS, which is funded by the taxpayer. I then donated to this case, which cost me the tax payer as I fund the judiciary. I’d like more common sense used at an earlier stage so I’m not paying for all these stupid decisions multiple times. Same as the unisex loos in the Home Office - they had single sex. I wish the people accountable for this wasting of public funds were actually held accountable.

Because if you ask transpeople what their sex is and what their sex 'assigned' at birth was (or registered at birth), you could get 2 different answers.

I was under the impression that trans people use the term “gender” to describe themselves? Are you saying that trans people would say their biological sex has changed as a result of being trans?

Of course YANBU.

It’s bloody bonkers and just shows the breadth of institutional capture.

@Summerhillsquare

It's a good result, but I don't know how I can answer the question on gender identity. I don't feel I have one, nor that the performance of sex stereotypes is relevant.

Is it a compulsory question? I haven’t completed mine yet.

I get the sense that some people don't understand that the census is all about gathering data for use by the government, councils etc. An individual return is confidential for a century after the census date. It's not an opportunity to tell the world 'I identify as ...' in any way that is linked to your own name. If the questions aren't answered correctly, the data becomes a lot less useful.

Made up example: Joe is male, and his birth certificate says M. When Joe is 45, he comes out as trans and henceforth is called Jo. Jo doesn't get a GRC, as can't see the point. Jo has hormone treatment, but no sexual reassignment surgery, as Jo has some heart problems that make it risky to have major surgery for anything except a life-threatening emergency.

Jo should click M on the census. There's an optional question on gender identity. If Jo feels comfortable answering that, that's the place to inform the government about Jo's trans status.

The data from the census helps the NHS plan what services might be needed in future. If lots and lots of Jos ticked F, not M, the NHS may conclude that there are more middle-aged and older women around than they thought and fewer men of that age. So they up the number of clinics and specialist HCPs dealing with breast cancer, ovarian cancer, menopause etc etc. Fewer services for older males, e.g. dealing with prostate cancer.

This is a problem for Jo, who isn't at risk of breast or ovarian cancer. If Jo gets a sex-specific cancer in old age, it's likely to be prostate cancer.