Attitudes to Gender - a survey being used to write a new gender bill in the UK

[Trousered]

What is the purpose of the study?
This survey is part of the Future of Legal Gender (FLaG) project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (2018-2021). It explores 1) whether people should have a female/male legal status assigned at birth; and 2) how we could change the way that female/male and other gender categories are used in UK law.
Who is doing this research and why?
Professor Davina Cooper (King’s College London) leads the overall project and Professor Elizabeth Peel (Loughborough University) is leading this part of the research.
We want to make sure that the research is informed by the experiences and views of a wide range of people. Thank you for sharing your opinions and contributing to the project. You can read more about why we are doing the project, and the research team here.

I had a look and then thought that I’d fill it out when I saw the initial questions about sex / gender. Then it started to weirdly conflate the two but I had spent too long on my initial answers so didn’t want to give up! Annoyingly, some of the answers that I gave could potentially be used in a way I wouldn’t want if my accompanying comments were disregarded. It was confusing and frustrating. Think probably still worthwhile as think was able to clearly communicate that I believed the shift in the law that they were advocating ‘researching’ was ridiculous.

Annoyingly, some of the answers that I gave could potentially be used in a way I wouldn’t want if my accompanying comments were disregarded.

Yes, I am a bit worried about that too. That they will just disregard the actual comments and only go for the clicked answer.

Same worries, same anger here. What a bunch of bollocks. I felt like I was talking to a toddler, "what would you lose if there was no distinction male/female?" er, the EA protected characteristics of sex and maternity, for one!

I just did this survey - my feedback at the end was 'this is a poorly written survey as it persistently and mistakenly conflates the terms sex and gender. I also suggest the authors of the survey educated themselves on intersex issues, as many questions betray a lack of understanding of intersex people and experience.'

It was a very frustrating experience.

I took it, it was about an hour and a half to do. I thought most of the questions were answerable under my definition of gender as being the social category and expectations imposed unconsciously by members of society on the basis of their recognition of an individuals' biological sex. In a few cases I put "I don't know" and explained that the question was not parsable given the definition I was using.

I think that it was at least more balanced than the consultation (which I did not take as I am American but I did read).

Urgh that took ages as I had to keep correcting the questions. I was worried too about them only using the clicked answers so I clicked neither agree nor disagree for the ones where that would be more worrying and then explained in the comment box what my actual answer was.

'this is a poorly written survey as it persistently and mistakenly conflates the terms sex and gender. I also suggest the authors of the survey educated themselves on intersex issues, as many questions betray a lack of understanding of intersex people and experience.'

You were way politer than me

Re: Fae’s thread.

Action for Trans Health wanted birth certificates banned entirely - no ducks given that birth certificates are a human right and in many cases prove both a childs’ existence in the world (making it harder to sell/traffic/kill the child) and confer the child’s right to a nationality, ie, a nation whose government becomes responsible for their wellbeing, especially in the absence of a parent.

But you know, lady feelz for middle aged white dudes are more important than a girl child’s right not to be disappeared.

Safeguarding. Safeguarding. Safeguarding.

I did it; started the other day and had to stop and clam down for a bit. I slated the questionnaire at the end and have just emailed the university to say I think it is deeply flawed and do not want any of my tick box answers used unless they guarantee t use them in conjunction with my written comments.

Well, I've completed it, much to the detriment of my blood pressure. As an academic I was surprised & a bit shocked at how much the survey confuses sex and gender. I might say 'typical lawyers' but I won't

Action for Trans Health

Well, they're highly unlikely to have the care of their own children to think about, are they?

JFC! I have done it but how on earth they will get anything meaningful out of it with the constant conflation of sex and gender is anyone's guess.

I'd encourage everyone to do it and make very good use of the frequent text boxes to make the point (over and over and over again!)

Its so badly written, I assumed it was a student project

It was dreadful.

Re the survey's conflation of sex & gender - and trying to be charitable - the GRA currently creates a legal fiction that people with a GRC have changed sex.

But really, what the GRA/GRC does is to acknowledge that living as & presenting as the opposite gender [role] can, in some cases be recognised as a change of sex.

So I wondered if the legal academics running the research project are so used to the sleight of hand of the GRA, and the conflation of sex and gender for legal reasons in the GRA, that they forgot that there are broader, non-specialist legal uses of the terms.

I completed but highlighted that it was SEX in each of the comment boxes. I made my feelings clear on the integrity of the survey at the end saying that the questions made no sense in most cases because of the conflation of sex/gender.
FFS - what a load of naval gazing bollocks

If anyone has time to look at this survey I think it's important as it will feed back to the government on attitudes to sex based protections.

Nudging this as something that might benefit from the input of women with diverse experiences and views.

Does anyone have any additional resources for responding that they might highlight, please?

Is it plausible that the survey might be amended to improve its clarity if complaints are lodged in sufficient numbers?

Hi - I'm a long term fan of mumsnet and look forward each day to reading the feminists threads.

But I had to join because I think it is vital that the survey is boycotted and we each take the time to report it not just because it conflates sex with gender but it is invalid as a survey as it makes questions compulsory but only gives you one or two options which if you dont accept you cant complete the survey.

They academics have received an enourmous amont of money and yet no one seems to have bothered to check if they are qualified to carry it out.

Peer review college
Email: [email protected]

Freedom of information
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 01793 413174

I have had a small amount of training in structuring surveys and this one just fails from the start.

It would help (I know how bad people are at accepting they may have made a mistake) that someone who is qualified did a critique of its structure.

The ESRC represents 7 UK research groups. they should be challenged.

The GRA survey was almost as bad.

It just isn't acceptable that we are put through these false tests to challenge what may be used to change or make new laws.

The Corporation of London one is another example. And it just seems that because so many took the time to do the survey to say how awful it was, they are now just boasting and saying how sucessful it was, and have had to get in outside help to complete the analysis. And you can bet whoever is being paid to do this is also being paid to ignore all those who completed it to be able to say it was invalid.

@stumbled

You are right: it needs someone with expertise to critique the survey.

You would think that the last people to carry out research into the legal status of 'gender' would be people who have an agenda.

I see that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has advertised the survey to the masses on Twitter.

It is already getting comments about how poorly written and biased it is

twitter.com/EHRC/status/1060167235191406596

Second question ". Does your current sex/gender match the sex you were given at birth?" Don't even know how to answer that, I wasn't "given" a sex at birth 

just done it and it is appalling and exhausting. Would have thought 2 professors could have done better or did they delegate to a student and not bother to check it. Utter waste of money and think question wording totally invalidates results. I did rant at every box.

It really is the most stupidly-constructed pile of garbage, inconsistently conflating "Sex" and "Gender" as though the two are the same. Poorly-worded questions, nonsensical hypotheses, all very depressing if this is representative of the standard of research. Must go and open some wine immediately.

Standards have really slipped at Kings college. That was very poorly worded.

God I need a gin! I just completed that. What in all hell was it? Seriously this is getting huge amounts of public money thrown at it, there are academics with Prof in front of their name compiling this twaddle - for what?
Reads like it was written by a school child trying desperately to be cool. Does no-one study methodology any more before embarking on 'research'?
Shocking. Truly shocking. I'm with CuriousaboutSamphire although I am not a researcher myself, but have family and friends who are.