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.

Thanks, I am really looking forward to listening to some sense being spoken. Instead of Vic and Tim's Big Day Out nonsense.

It's linked in here

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1073202270559449088?s=20

www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/culture-tourism-europe-and-external-affairs-committee-december-13-2018

have just watched it and tra's must be fuming because people are talking scientific sense and not pandering to their feelz.There was one bit that struck me when one of the ladies stated that transmen were biologically women and i did wonder how the tra's would take to that.

I also liked the submitted evidence that (paraphrasing) said that there was no evidence whatsoever for transgenderism having any biological / physical cause.

I found that striking too irnbru

It's just so refreshing to hear educated people talking sensibly and factually about issues...

It's interesting how there seems to be a lack of transparency and scrutiny about how the question of sex was changed for the 2011 census. Really pleased that it's being pointed out and that there were suggestions that perhaps it needs to be looked in to.

I thought that was interesting / scary too. I can only guess that some organisation decided to "advise" them...

If I had the time, I wonder if this was something that could be requested under Freedom of Information.

I hope the committee go further on finding out how the 2011 definition passed. It was so wonderful to hear critical comments about official conflations of sex and gender in local authorities etc. If this opens up a root and branch examination of how data is gathered and conflated along with a beefed up approach too EA, we may be moving!

Don't want to get ahead of myself but this is so positive. I hope rest of UK can see. It needs to influence debate down south too! This seems awfully dry but it would be good if Westminster noticed!

Thank you so much for highlighting this and for the YouTube links.
I've watched both sessions in full.

Some of those MSP have really educated themselves and asked really pertinent questions. Better late than never. The one with the data analysers/ statistician types i imagined would be very dry and overmy head as actually really interesting. The end particularly when asked about issues with previous census. I definitely recommend watching both.

All this topic needs is sunlight and the reason for #nedebate becomes so clear. The TRA don't have a debate just slogans.
If the session convenor is your MP you are very very lucky. She's impressive.

Well done Scotland for looking at this critically. I hope the rest of the UK follow your lead.

The white paper outlining the England and Wales proposals was released today

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/765089/Census2021WhitePaper.pdf

forwomen.scot
@ForwomenScot
Highland council have seen sense over plans to introduce unisex toilets in a primary school. Well done to all the campaigners. Let's keep up pressure on other councils!

m.facebook.com/JoanMcAlpineSNP/ this is Joan mcalpine fb page where, if you want, can msg her. I intend to thank her for her clear, consise and rational approach to both these meetings.

Thankfully, the ONS (who organise the census in England and Wales) are NOT proposing adding a third option to the sex question.

Also hoping MSPs will reject this in the Scottish Parliament, which feels more likely based on the two oral evidence sessions that have taken place on the draft legislation.

Can Joan please take over the entire United Kingdom, and can she start Monday.

There's a bit in the second session, with the statisticians and the health people where the guy talks about "intersections" in the right way.. i. e. The census asks different questions on different characteristics: age, sex, ethnicity, disability so they can study how people are affected by intersecting characteristics. . Being male does not intersect with being female!

are NOT proposing adding a third option to the sex question

But how will they be defining sex?

According to Tim Hopkins in the first broadcast, the 2001 ONS guidance for the sex question was to 'answer it according to the sex someone believed themselves to be'

I know there are plans to have a gender identity question but that will be optional.

So won't there be a need to see that definition of sex tightened up?

I've been reading the documents that come with this bill.

This is from the Policy Memorandum (PDF):

Sex
15. There has always been a question on sex with a binary response option (male/female) included in the census. The 2011 Census recognised that society‘s understanding of sex has changed and guidance provided explained that the question was being asked in terms of self-identified sex. Looking forward to 2021, consultation has identified the need for a more inclusive approach to measuring sex. The sex question being proposed for the 2021 Census will continue to be one of self-identification and will provide non-binary response options. Importantly, the sex question proposed will not seek a declaration of biological or legal sex.

It was clear watching the evidence sessions that the guidance in 2011 was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard. (h/t Douglas Adams)

Yet another thing that's been pushed through quietly, under the radar

I want to see the people who designed the 2011 census giving evidence to this committee. I want to know who advised them, who and how they consulted. I want accountability.

Meanwhile, in 2011 a question on sexual orientation was not included (despite being a protected characteristic in the shiny new EA) because, the level of public acceptance of the question was not considered sufficient to merit its inclusion in that census.

This is how they define 'sexual orientation' in the policy memorandum:

Sexual orientation is a combination of emotional, romantic, sexual or affectionate attraction or feelings towards another person. How a person determines their sexual orientation can be based on any combination of the above attractions, feelings or behaviours. It can change over time and a person may not know what their sexual orientation is.

I can't quite describe how cross I feel right now.

Scottish Trans Alliance have submitted supplementary evidence (PDF).

They cite Goodwin and claim that asking trans people their birth sex on the census would be a breach of article 8 of the human rights act (right to private life). They say trans people will just put their gender identity anyway, not answer the question or not complete the census in protest.

I can't see how article 8 applies. It's not their employment or HMRC records. It's not their driving licence or insurance policy. It's not their 'records' it's anonymised data. The census asks all of us all sorts of nosy questions. Do we all have an article 8 case?

They say - We appreciate that for the vast majority of people the sex they state on their census form will be very useful in predicting their likely use of health services. It is understandable that people may therefore think that asking a trans person their “biological sex at birth” would also be very useful in predicting their use of health services. However, many trans people undergo various hormonal and surgical interventions that can significantly change their healthcare needs and health risks. For example, trans women who undergo hormone treatment will need breast cancer screening, despite the fact that their biological sex characteristics at birth would have been described as male. It is simply not possible to use the census data to accurately predict the diverse healthcare needs of trans people, regardless of how they are asked to complete the sex question.

Having just read the devastating thread on the effects of T on the female body I think it might be quite useful to know how many men's gynae surgical wards we're going to need over the next decade. In the first evidence session Vic Valentine said transmen might not need cervical screening anyway because lots have hysterectomies.

Yes Vic, we have a sudden, unprecedented and vertiginous rise in the number of young female people who are likely to require hysterectomies over the next few years because testosterone has damaged their organs.

Should we collect useful data so we can plan for that or shall we just pretend it's not happening?

So because they will lie or refuse to do it they should get their own way?

t is simply not possible to use the census data to accurately predict the diverse healthcare needs of trans people, regardless of how they are asked to complete the sex question.

Ok. So do we accept that a proportion of 1-2% of responses won't be accurate and do the best we can (possibly forecasting potential numbers by the responses of biological sex AND gender identity/transition), or do we bugger up the accuracy of responses for the other 98+% of the population too?

PencilsInSpace Given that response from STA one could almost suspect that they do not want any reliable data collected about the transgender community. I wonder why that might be. [And, by the way, law says only those with a GRC should be afforded privacy and that it applies only to transsexuals.

Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010 is very specific about this reference only to transsexuals.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

The issue of "transgender" and "non-binary" is a red herring.

After a LOT of trawling I found the Equality Impact Assessment for this bill here. I would be extremely surprised if this was lawful. They have lumped 'sex' and 'gender reassignment' in together and then failed to say anything at all about the impact of these changes on women and girls - it's all about trans.

The bill basically removes any meaning from the category 'sex' and they did not see fit to assess the impact of this on women and girls.