Trans people will be able to choose their gender for next census after bill passes final stage

[stumbledin]

Oh dear - maybe it would have been better to let Parliament be porogued because then this bill couldn't have had its final reading and would have been lost.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/next-census-will-allow-trans-people-choose-gender-bill-passes/

Was thinking we need a really big campaign to encourage everybody to ignore this question (no legal penalty) to show that gender identity is totally irrelevant to most people.

Daily Telegraph picked up on this today.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/next-census-will-allow-trans-people-choose-gender-bill-passes/

Prof Rosa Freedman pointing out the obvious flaw. "The census does not exist to validate people's identities. The purpose of the census is to gather data that allows the government to plan for population needs. The sex question is crucial for the government to be able to plan for the needs of the country, whether looking at prostate and cervical cancers or at the gap in earnings between females and males."

"None of these issues can be addressed if sex and transgender is conflated in the census. Instead of conflating sex and transgender we need to have questions on both."

This was discussed in Scotland recently regarding their own census. The committee was chaired by JMcA and it’s online somewhere. I don’t know the outcome in Scotland. Joan her usual incisive self and the guy from ONS mumbling incoherently. Some things stood out - JMcA saying she had been approached by medical researchers very concerned that this would skew the data on biological sex which is essential for medical research. Also that they had only been consulted very recently. Their consultation with women’s grouos had been offered at 7 days notice and in one location only meaning many women were unable to attend. Oh, and yes, one poor male member of the committee unable to make sense of the ONS guy saying ‘wouldn’t it just be easier to tell people to put in the sex recorded on their birth certificate?’. Quite.

The sex question really needs changing to "do you have, or have you ever had, a penis?" Yes/No.

No need to mess around with nonsense terminology like "lived sex" and "assigned at birth". Presence or absence of said appendage would cover it.

So, to clarify.
The sex question is NOT requiring your biological sex.
The sex question is NOT requiring your legal sex.
It is asking your LIVED SEX. I don't know what this means, so I cannot answer it.

I could have answered the first two honestly.

It's literally impossible for me to answer a question where the two terms 'LIVED' and 'SEX' are not explained but are patently different from biological or legal sex.

Is the sex question mandatory?
They've rendered it impossible to answer.

Five years from now in some govt dept: shit, the census data is useless for all practical purposes, no one can do anything useful with it, the gap between the data and service level reality is massive and we've allocated funding all wrong, and the basic reasons for doing it at has been pissed into the wind.

But that's what happens when you turn the whole bloody thing into a nurture and validate self perception exercise instead of insisting that recorded data MUST be based on fact.

The issue with presenting the two questions separately is that many of those it will affect will intentionally answer what they wish was the truth and give you a whole spiel of nonsense about outie vaginas and gendered souls yada yada yada.

All of this, almost every damn thread on the board sending my blood pressure ever higher, boils down to:

• There must be a boundary around how far a trans person can be counted as of the sex they would prefer to be, and in some circumstances they can be offered alternatives and third spaces but cannot enter facilities or provisions for a biological sex they do not have. Because of the impact on others, who matter too.

• This will have to be an immoveable, fixed boundary that is policed until it is accepted that there are limits around single sex provisions and around correct data for society purposes that cannot be swayed by choice or claims of it being too upsetting.

• The whacking great tantrums that will ensue are no reason to avoid this and let everyone else suffer a never ending muddle via govt gutlessness.

There was a Twitter thread recently, linked on another census discussion, with trans people saying they were going to answer with what they see themselves as anyway, even if it asks for birth sex, because to them their birth sex has always been their “trans sex” or however you want to describe it.

Basically there should be a question at the beginning: “are you trans?” or similar, and those that answer yes should be discarded for use of anything towards sex-based demographics, because it’s highly likely they will be completely fiction.

The sex question really needs changing to "do you have, or have you ever had, a penis?" Yes/No.

I appreciate the sentiment you're aiming for, but I am not defined by my lack of a penis. Women are not the penisless others. We are women, we are female, and that has been perfectly acceptable for every other census.

Basically there should be a question at the beginning: “are you trans?” or similar, and those that answer yes should be discarded for use of anything towards sex-based demographics, because it’s highly likely they will be completely fiction.

I think those either delusionally or politically motivated would simply answer 'no' as they don't want to see themselves as trans, they want to see themselves as the opposite sex.

I’ve been amusing myself with thoughts of filling in ‘I identify with a snow leopard’
I was born on Mars
Making up a date of birth.
Endless fun could be had.

I’m definitely putting religion as Jedi from now on too.

The question makes a mockery of the whole thing.
(I didn't know you could change gender - only your appearance - with a new passport etc).
Another example of overly PC behaviour!

The commission have very clearly stated that the small number of trans people who answer in line with their current sex status is extremely unlikely to significantly affect data integrity for needs assessment and the provision of services.

is extremely unlikely to significantly affect data integrity for needs assessment and the provision of services

Y’know who will be affected tho? Trans people. If the government doesn’t know how many trans people there are, how do you calculate adequate provision?

I think those either delusionally or politically motivated would simply answer 'no' as they don't want to see themselves as trans, they want to see themselves as the opposite sex

I’ve recently seen several internet comments from trans people saying now that their transition goals are met, they identify as ‘cis’ (most notably India Willoughby on Twitter, but there are others too).

It confirms the wise words that older/more knowledgeable feminists shared with me when I first started getting interested in the debate - you can’t make any concessions of language because transactivists are colonisers - they move the goalposts every chance they get.

Sp long as sex and gender are separated in the questions I don’t really care

It's assumed that only a very tiny proportion of people will give fictional responses, and hoped that this will be small enough not to bugger up national planning of services.

Thing is, no one knows how many and how big that sample of people will in fact be. No one. Because there will be no way to tell who supplies fact and who supplies personal choice of identity. So it won't be able to be proved if it's a small enough sample or not.

And secondly, if it's fine and legal for one person to provide their personal choice of information as opposed to real fact, it has to be fine for everyone to provide personal choice. The integrity of the whole thing ends. If it's ok for someone to put their personal preferred choice of sex down why is it not ok for someone else to put their personal and preferred choice of age or income or address?

You cannot expect 99% of the population to meekly stay in their box so that less than 1% have something to identify away from.

I've checked Hansard.

Irrespective of the voluntary 'gender identity' question, it does appear that the SEX question, which is mandatory, is not intended to capture biological sex, nor legal sex.

I've also checked the official ONS guidance.

We're effectively getting two questions on gender identity. One of which is deceptively entitled sex, is mandatory, and has only two possible answers.

Look:

Sex
What is your sex?
Select either “Female” or “Male”

If you are one or more of non-binary, transgender, have variations of sex characteristics, sometimes also known as intersex, the answer you give can be different from what is on your birth certificate.

If you’re not sure how to answer, use the sex registered on your official documents, such as passport or driving licence, or whichever answer best describes your sex.

A later question gives the option to tell us if your gender is different from your sex registered at birth, and, if different, to record your gender.

They are not asking for sex registered at birth. Nor legal sex. Nor biological sex.

Sp long as sex and gender are separated in the questions I don’t really care

As explained above, they are not being separated. It is now apparently acceptable to put your gender for the 'sex' question.

If you’re not sure how to answer, use the sex registered on your official documents, such as passport or driving licence

It's worth bearing in mind that one of the Man Friday women got their driving licence changed to male just by self declaring.

or whichever answer best describes your sex

This makes it clear that self-id is allowed, or at least will be seen as ok, even without the accompanying documents.

Maybe as many people as possible should answer female, woman, femme, AHF, ovary haver, womanly, womanish etc etc.
Then if enough people do, we will have most of the funding for everything, and parliament will have to add more female members to be more inclusive, and women will get top positions in companies cos inclusive innit.

I’m definitely putting religion as Jedi from now on too
I did this last time, what I didnt realise is that it all counts under religion and therefore religious things are funded, religions are given a voice and as jedi is not an actual religion they didnt get a voice in anything. It just skews stats but in organised religions favour. Iirc there was no choice of no religion offered, but it wasnt compulsory either.
After the ruckus in NI about abortions I would prefer religion to be taken out of politics altogether. We should be a secular country.

This is a complete embarrassment. If our country can't get a question on biological sex correct in a census, we are officially the most stupid century yet and that's quite some achievement. Bullied into doublethink over basic biological sex.

And people wonder why the great unwashed of this country reject the expertise of their more educated overlords.

There has to be a way to register our ire on the form!

I may well take the Monty Python route as @Dangerfloof has started:

Female, uterus haver, bleeder, not man, woman, femme, woman, lady, membe rof the fairier sex, daughter, sister, aunt, wife, dame, madam, matron, squaw, helpmeet, ball and chain, 'er indoors, ald lady, Mrs, Ms., oviparous, reproductive, fertile, childbearing, pistillate, pistil-bearing, of the female gender, distaff, 'more deadly than the male'

I wish I couild spell... or proof read!

Maybe they should cut the crap:
"Do you now (or did you*) ever have a prostate"
Yes/no
The Census is for recording factual info about a population. If x% of a population of males are likely to get prostate cancer then we can prepare, with the equivalent for smear tests etc etc.
Are people going to die because our statistics are ruined by people making shit up?
Now that really would be 'transphobic'

(*I guess prostate cancer survivors will of had them removed and certainly would know about it)