Census in Scotland proposes that sex and gender identity are the same thing?

[stumbledin]

(I wasn’t aware about this, but saw something posted on facebook and found this):

The Scottish Government regards ―gender identity as already being covered by the reference to ―sex in paragraph 1 of the schedule to the 1920 Act and a census could ask. This document relates to the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 40) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 2 October 2018 questions about gender identity without the amendment of that paragraph being made. Likewise, the Scottish Government regards paragraph 6 of the schedule as providing authority to ask questions about sexual orientation. The main policy aim of the Bill is not, therefore, to facilitate the asking of questions about gender identity and sexual orientation but to make answering those questions effectively voluntary. The policy recognises both the importance and sensitivity of the new questions and seeks to mitigate concerns about intrusion into private life by placing the questions on a voluntary basis.

6.There is an additional reason for amending paragraph 1 of the schedule to add reference to gender identity. The issues of sex and of gender identity are linked, especially if the sex question asked is a non-binary sex question (for example ―Are you male, female, other?). The precise form of the question is still to be considered by Parliament during its scrutiny of the Census Order and regulations. The ―sex question will remain compulsory. For that reason, the Bill does not hard-wire provision that would make answering questions about gender identity voluntary (that might catch the sex question) and, instead, provides a power to prescribe aspects of gender identity (such as trans/trans history) for the purpose of making questions about those aspects voluntary.

www.parliament.scot/S5_Bills/CensusScotlandBill/SPBill40PMS052018.pdf

There was a consultation which closed on 23 November 2018 and written evidence has now been published. (including on from Prof. Rosemary Auchmunty and Prof. Rosa Freedman) www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/109902.aspx

Scotland seems to be at least if not two steps ahead in implementing gender identity as the norm in law rather than sex.

Because I'm struggling to understand how he could disagree unless it's with reality in general!

He disagrees with reality on general. He's a woke green who faithfully believes that TWAW. To be fair to him though, he is very young.

Snork!

I suppose that he really does think that NBs are physically unable to get pregnant unless they identify into it.

He disagrees with reality on general. He's a woke green who faithfully believes that TWAW. To be fair to him though, he is very young.

If he's so young that he isn't able to understand that a non-binary female will still need to use services for females (eg maternity care/provisions, gynae screening, prisons) then he shouldn't be in that role.

His youth may be a factor (what age is he? I don't think he's that much younger than me), but I think his main deficiencies are his misogyny, and his arrogance around topics he is clearly ignorant about (not unusual for a young man, which is why their views on what women need should be taken with a pinch of salt).

Ah, he's born in 1994. That is young.

Thank God, that's a relief.

It has to in law be two separate things. Biological sex - a fixed, unchanging binary fact, which is essential to know in provision of services and collection of data - and a separate section recording if a person would like to state a gender identity in addition to your biological sex. With an understanding that for many, this state will fluctuate and change through their lifetime. And the ability to predict and cater for NB and trans population needs in addition to biologically sexed needs.

Love the comment about HCAnderson. So very true. It's baffling that a committee needed to discuss were they going to record fact or honestly spend money and resources on collating fiction that helps nobody.

Tim Hopkins' position seemed be 20 years ago they made the sex question a self-identity question (that was clearly a mistake, it introduced far too much ambiguity to the question and made the data meaningless) though it suits Tim's agenda to keep it meaningless and ambiguous so he wants them to maintain that position and introduce loads of additional questions and options (eg a third sex) to try and work around that error, which still leaves it completely ambiguous and meaningless.

When ALL the issues, "ours", "theirs", and the Census', would all be resolved by fixing the error that slipped in under the radar 20 years ago and making the sex question ask sex, and then add voluntary gender identity questions.

Some comments on Hopkins and Valentine on FWS (posted on other thread, but thought would leave here too!)

twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1071002717961814016

Excellent follow up there by FWS.

Addresses the issues that I was shouting at the TV last night upon hearing Vic and Tim's evidence. Also thought the sex/sexuality question from Kenneth Gibson needed expanded on so very pleased to see this picked up too.