Defining sex in the Scottish Census

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

www.scottishparliament.tv/channel/committee-room-2

Bloke on just now arguing that they are not allowed to ask for biological sex, and should be asking for lived for sex

This is the committee that Rosa Freedman was giving evidence to.

Thank you Alice

I had a hunch that was the case but wasnt entirely sure.

Yes I know that many don't have surgery. I'm hoping the panel figured that out. Given the self Id thing was proposed to make it easier and quicker to and remove medical intervention because it was so hard to get anywhere. I don't see how you can argue about waiting lists, waiting times, difficulty accessing treatment, suicide stats whilst waiting for treatments etc then say everyone has surgery so if they ticked male it wouldn't make a difference to the medical screening data pool. Which is it? They all have surgery or they all kill themselves waiting?

I did get angry when they talked abiut women having hysterectomies in a "well it basically cancels it out" kinda reasoning .

1.hysterectomies are an exclusively female medical issue.

1. As you have confirmed the cervix often isn't removed.
2. How dare you use what is often a very long hard rocky ground for women ( gynae issues are basically something women are told to suck up no matter how debilitating) to get your own way.

Made me irrationally angry

Not irrationally angry - rightly angry!

It is a despicable weaponization of an often traumatic medical procedure!

I think the inaccuracies & evasions of STA were pretty apparent (I mean non-binary people don't have surgery so why use that as an argument?!)

They did make some other statements that should be challenged - and hopefully this will be raised. They argued that end users collect data on gender not sex & that representation on public boards defined women as inclusive of self ID. In first instance, the councils are acting illegally & second is just bad law. Neither justifies more bad law!

The point about lack of privacy with census forms being per household is relevant for adults house or flat sharing though. You wonder why forms can't be personal and electronic now

Thanks for posting this OP - I'm a bit more optimistic now about where we're heading. Joan was brilliant at chairing - not sure whether to say so publicly and possibly set her up for targeting.

It looked like the politicians were keen to get to the real issues which was refreshing and encouraging. This is what will change minds.

Joan was brilliant at chairing - not sure whether to say so publicly and possibly set her up for targeting.

This is why I did not want to comment anything on her tweets that in any way looked like she was on "our" side, because she will be targetted. Plus, I think it's unnecessary - she, and the majority of the committee, are clearly aware of the issues that this presents more widely than just to the trans community, there is no need to try to pin them down into "coming out" as an ally of women (or "anti-trans", as the TRAs would say). Their questions were searching and considerate, they understand tthe issues perfectly well, and that is all we need.

Their questions were searching and considerate, they understand tthe issues perfectly well, and that is all we need.

Totally agree. They finally understand the issues now so can come to objectively justifiable conclusions, whatever these may be.

When will the people of Scotland find out what's happening?

Watching that clip and seeing how they physically couldn't even answer the questions, got themselves muddled trying to get out of being caught out for basically not caring about anyone but themselves and their "identity", and banging on about nonsense, well there's no way they could come to any other conclusion . But what if they just go the route everyone ekse has taken and give them what they want, then refuse to engage any further with anyone who isn't "well done. The trans community thank you/ sides of history crap"

FWS with some responses to Hopkins and Valentine. Hopkins & Valentine could be an ITV quirky PI show - I'd watch that. Except they'd probably be investigating witches!

twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1071002717961814016

Had a sneek peek but will watch full thing later.

Thank goodness for Rosa Freedman.

Rosa Freedman and Susan Smith were both brilliant. Calm, articulate women who explained each point so well.

The full transcript of the Committee meeting is here: www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11836

The second meeting is this Thursday - details of witnesses: www.parliament.scot/S5_European/Meeting%20Papers/20181210CTEEAPublicPapers.pdf
Annexe B gives supplementary info from Rosa Freedman in which she clarifies "when we use the word ‘sex’ in law, we are referring to biological sex".

Thanks Betsy - the next meeting is looking like it may be interesting too.

And Annexe A is a pretty positive input to the consultation too...

^We are
however concerned about doing this in a way which would allow changes to the
responses available to the question on sex. If implemented, this change will conflate
sex and gender identity, which are entirely separate concepts. We believe this will
undermine the core intellectual principles underpinning the census, and assign to
"sex" a new meaning which departs from its conventional legal and scientific use. We
also note the changes are inconsistent with understanding of sex set out in the
Equality Act 2010.^

^We are also concerned about the validity of the Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA)
on the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, undertaken by National Records of
Scotland (NRS).1
This considers the two separate protected characteristics of 'sex'
and 'gender reassignment' together and makes no conclusion about the potential
impact of the Bill on those who come under the 'sex' protected characteristic.^

^ Does the Scottish Government believe that a person can have a sex other
than male or female?
 Is the Scottish Government confident that any third option in the response on
sex would be interpreted in a consistent way across the population, as would
be needed for it to provide reliable data?
 In cases where people declare themselves other than female or male, does
the Scottish Government believe that they cease to require access to any
services which are normally provided specifically for people who are either
male or female?
 In these cases, does the Scottish Government believe they cease to be a
source of relevant data about any health or other phenomena which have a
sex-based pattern in the population?
 If the Scottish Government does believe so, what evidence is it drawing on?^

Excellent set of questions at the end there about the non binary option which show what a load of nonsense it is when applied to sex for the purpose of collecting sex based data. We are dimorphic. How feminine you are in your head is irrelevant to what biological sex you are.

Just watched this and now kinda feel bad for cancelling my snp membership (directly due to the whole trans issue). Very impressed with Joan mcalpine and Annabelle Ewing. Ross Greer fails as a woke idiot who clearly didn't do any research. Although it was oddly satisfying to hear, after him asking what the tall man had to say on behalf of intersex (despite Rosa clearly stating beforehand that trans and intersex were two different issues not to be conflated or intersex co opted), the man had to admit he couldn't speak for the intersex community because it was bloody totally separate from trans. I just hope the rational argument from rosa and susan (can't remember which msp described it as such) prevails.

Really great submission for the next session!

Wow! Standing ovation for Rosa and Susan and for the well prepared MSPs

This shows it can be done: if the people entrusted with responsibility for our institutions step up and act like grown ups . They can have a sensible serious discussion on this topic. (I'm looking at you Layla Moran, the FA, girl guides. YHA, NSPCC..)

Its striking how much of what Rosa said would have got someone thrown off Twitter and most feminist and parenting FB groups, noplatformed, subject to letter writing campaigns to your employer etc... Yet in the light of day it clearly sounds nothing like hateful bigotry.a

A couple of things the MSPs didnt nail down:

About personal care and whether there can ever be blanket exemptions. They got a bit stuck on gender fluid people. But the point also stands for full time transwomen. If grandma wants a female carer she should be able to have one. Vic & the bloke panelist didn't quite admit that they'd deny this choice, but that's what their categories and confidentiality imply - since there would be no way for grandma to challenge or specify. There is no legitimate reason to exclude people "with a trans history" from the job, for example a non binary person (with a fanny not a penis) would do fine. If what you need to know is someone's sex you ought to be able to ask it.

Also in regards to privacy filling in the form: under what circumstances would it ever be appropriate for someone sharing living quarters with another person to hide their sex? Can you imagine - - the female flatmate, lodger, family member's live in girlfriend that you share your home with is actually male- - - would it ever be right to hide for them to hide that info from you??? That's not normal confidentiality it's creepy, scary behaviour.

A lot of the blokes reasoning seemed to be based on the scenario where someone passes convincingly., (ie the sex you 'live as' is the same as the one others perceive). He didn't mention the more usual case (especially w transwomen) where people can clearly read that the person is presenting as
female (ie: making an effort with clothes, hair, makeup) but that they are male.

"What does it mean to live as a woman?" Hahahahaha i love it when that comes up in professional enquiries.

Second session on now:

www.scottishparliament.tv/

forwomen.scot
‏*@ForwomenScot*
Second session of @SP_European census hearing. Panellists stressing importance of integrity of data on binary nature of sex for health, education etc & importance to separate sex & gender.
Panellists feel that guidance on self ID as introduced in 2011 census should be reversed.
Stressing that we do not know impact of changing definitions (& possibly never will if changed) but they will affect some sub groups (e.g. young people in education) more than others.
Level of information needs to be balanced against user needs. Other data is captured in, for example, sexual attitudes survey.
Convener pointing out conflation that happens across government & local authority as a concern. Agreed by panel that it's a fudge which needs to be set right.

A really excellent session. The message that sex is binary and that the 2011 guidance needed revising rather than extending came through very clearly. There also were questions about how that got in there in the first place and who influenced it.

Bet Tim, Vic and co are cross they ever started this!

I can't find the session? Can anyone link to it please?

It's finished now but should be archived soon.