Sunday Times - Sex question catapults census into trans war

[mcduffy]

Sex question catapults census into trans war

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sex-question-catapults-census-into-trans-war-vq29nfvsg

I'm not sure how to do share tokens (or if I can from the app)
Letter sent to the Sunday Times today from >70 academics, some of whom have opted to be anonymous.

The relatively small number is erroneous: it's a vague hope that avoids the issue. No one knows how small this number is or what impact it will have. If it's ok for anyone to post preferred fictional information on the census then it has to be ok for everyone to do so, with the accepted outcome being that the data will be (I think as the scots parliament debate put it) a work by Hans Christian Anderson as opposed to usable for its actual purpose.

This is the situation at hand. Is it more important for a state to keep accurate ongoing records for purpose of public services, or more important that individual people get to see their current personal choice of identification validated? Is there any point in spending time and money and effort keeping documentation when it can be fictional to reflect an individual's preferred reality as opposed to objective truth? Is there a point where it becomes outstandingly selfish to put ones own personal feelings in all circumstances above the needs of society?

It's also fascinating to see pro gender people flip between "we are legion" and "so few it doesn't matter if this policy causes problems" based on what's most convenient at any given moment.

You don’t choose a gender identity. You know if you’re a man or a woman.

The list of gender identities and attendant pronouns continues to grow. We have people like Pips Bunce who change their gender identity daily. We have OMAB(1) people who self-declare as non-binary and then later self-declare as women. We have young women who transition to become transmen and then detransition back to self-acknowledged womanhood. We have gender critical people saying, in good faith, that they don't have nor understand a gender identity. We have genderists who describe themselves as "agender".

I would argue that people often do not know their gender identity. If they did, "gender fluidity" wouldn't be a thing and people wouldn't desist or change between identities.

Wasn’t it the ONS (or EHRC?) that said the relatively small number of transitioned people won’t affect the validity of this sort of health planning from a census sex question.

That's assuming that the numbers of GRC holders won't shoot up if self-id becomes law. (Pro-tip: it will.)

(1) Observed male at birth.

Can you explain what being a man or woman is @bd67th as I cant get head round what you're saying.

Isn't it sexist imposing 'genders'

How does someone 'do' woman one say and 'do' man the next exactly without horrible sexist gender stereotypes? This is really offensive.

Such sexism!

Does one have to change clothes? How sexist

Sureot ita none of anyone's business whether someone identifies more with other women on one say or men the next? Nothing has to outwardly change surely as we've gotten past that sexist rubbish now, right?

If a person has to dress a certain way to somehow try to prove they are male or female how very backwards and sexist.

TruthOnTrial

For Equality Act 2010 purposes, a woman is "a female of any age" and a man is "a male of any age". Most dictionaries use "adult human female" to define woman. I know that I am a woman because menstruating, growing breasts during puberty, and a quick look at my undressed crotch with a purse mirror all confirm that I am female, whilst a check of my driver's licence confirms my adulthood and membership of the human species (we don't let non-human animals drive). These are objective, verifiable observations, not a matter of self-identification.

I think you have misascribed the italicised quotes to me. They are actually FieldOfGreyCorn's words.

Oh, I apologise!