FairPlay for Women may take the ONS to court about the Census

[fastwigglylines]

They've just tweeted:

"BREAKING: We're pleased to announce that Fair Play For Women has instructed a barrister to evaluate the lawfulness of the ONS approach regarding the definition of sex in the Census."

"If the ONS has broken the law we will hold them to account in the high court by judicial review"

This is great news! I hope they do have a case.

Although, as an aside I'm fed up that so many brilliant women are having to spend so much time, money and effort using the courts to get people who really should know better to do the basics of their jobs properly! It appears to be the only way, though. And a very effective one at that... ideology and bullying tactics don't fare so well in a court of law.

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1361239632931921920

This is such bizarre situation.

Surely it would be better for the trans community for the ONS to be able to identify how many trans individuals there actually are in the country? Which could be done by asking on the census

• legal sex
• gender identify as if not same as legal sex

And identifying the cases where there is a disparity and adding on the number of GRCs?

Who does this benefit?

If FPFW are right, and this has the effect of making it taboo to ask what sex you were born then:

• sex offenders will be able to identify as they like
• providers of single sex services won't be able to ask who uses their refuges and counselling services etc
• competitive sports won't be able to ask which sex you are when filling teams, picking who gets benched, who gets a training contract.

IIRC, when the sex offences act came in/in the runup, women's groups said that rape and sexual assaults had to be recorded by sex. The government agreed. The definition of rape is written in clear and unambiguous language.

We now seem to be some way past how it should be recorded, as the MoJ technical document shows:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/760019/technical-guide-women-criminal-justice-system-2017.pdf

So who does this benefit? Good question.

*Although, as an aside I'm fed up that so many brilliant women are having to spend so much time, money and effort using the courts to get people who really should know better to do the basics of their jobs properly! It appears to be the only way, though. And a very effective one at that... ideology and bullying tactics don't fare so well in a court of law.
*

This. I'm so angry with all the thousands of people being paid good money to do their jobs properly, who are ignoring their duty for a quiet life. I'm not normally one for retribution but when I think of all the anguish this is causing and all the hundreds and thousands of busy women who have spent years pointing out the ruddy obvious and trying to get people to do their jobs properly, I want heads to roll. I want individuals held accountable and jobs lost. I don't want to be kind, I don't want to understand, I want revenge.

It really beggars belief that ONS have fallen for this. If the Office for National Statistics do not understand the importance of accurate, reliable data, what exactly is the point of them?

Apparently a key reason they went ahead with this vague option rather than being clear and requesting "sex registered at birth" was fear of boycotts and complaints from LGBTQ community (obvs these opinions were canvassed from Stonewall and similar orgs).

But obviously no fear of women (51%) boycotting/complaining.

Is there any mass coordinated strategy on how best to answer the census?

-Completely boycott? What’s the fine?
-State my gender identity is gender critical?
-State my religion is gender critical?
-Put a big red line through it and state If they don’t want facts then I won’t fill it in?

I want individuals held accountable and jobs lost. I don't want to be kind, I don't want to understand, I want revenge.

Nothing else to add.

@Mollyollydolly

More digging which I do gratefully. But it mightily pisses me off this is necessary.

Absolutely, we have no option but to fund this but the more money we have to donate the more time and effort I’m going to spend on this. In effect they are radicalising us further as there is no possibility of us thinking organisations will see sense if we don’t.

The thing I don't understand is why anyone can have an incorrect sex on their passport, one that is neither their actual sex nor their legal sex.

How/why did that happen?

Like uppity I'm wondering if we can do something in a co-ordinated way. What is the fine for not filling in the census?

Just seen its up to £1000.

@MichelleofzeResistance

This gets to me too - I keep seeing on twitter 'It's a tiny, tiny percentage of inaccurate data, what does it matter?'

Well for a start, it ends the census being impartial, factual information by law, and opens the door to it all being subjective preferred facts that make it a waste of time and money. The taxpayer cost of this is huge. It may be a tiny percentage this year, but that genie won't go back in the bottle once it's out, and what happens when it's 50%?

But if it's only a tiny percentage, then what did a boycott or people defiantly entering their preferred data anyway matter? Why was it important enough to risk alienating the majority of the population?

and this is the thing - they can't actually claim that only a tiny proportion of the numbers will be inaccurate because they don't have the numbers to prove it!!

I don't think the DVLA or Passport Office have any idea how many people have changed the sex marker on their driving licence/passport because they don't hold that data. Or the number of people who applied for a new driving licence with a sex marker that doesn't match their birth certificate - they just literally don't know!! If you look on social media, there seems to be quite a few of them.

In the same way that I understand Norway now doesn't know how many women are resident in the country because they allow self-id. If only a tiny proportion of male Norwegians are self-id'ing as women it still makes the data unreliable especially when you drill down to specific groups and less useful because you are hoping that it is not many but have zero actual proof.

Utterly and completely bonkers and I hope they get their arses handed to them in court.

@UppityPuppity

Apparently a key reason they went ahead with this vague option rather than being clear and requesting "sex registered at birth" was fear of boycotts and complaints from LGBTQ community (obvs these opinions were canvassed from Stonewall and similar orgs).

But obviously no fear of women (51%) boycotting/complaining.

Is there any mass coordinated strategy on how best to answer the census?

-Completely boycott? What’s the fine?
-State my gender identity is gender critical?
-State my religion is gender critical?
-Put a big red line through it and state If they don’t want facts then I won’t fill it in?

I want individuals held accountable and jobs lost. I don't want to be kind, I don't want to understand, I want revenge.

Nothing else to add.

I like the idea of putting religion as gender critical. People do it with Jedi - it’s still completing it so hopefully a fine wouldn’t apply (I hope!??) but every time the census is done I see news reports about the number of people who have put Jedi so maybe it would also help to raise awareness??

The ONS has one job. Just one job. To collect accurate data.

The census asks individuals 50 detailed questions about health, work and ethnicity. By Q3 'What is your sex?' it has failed in that job.

I despair.

Are the ONS proposing to ignore their own impact assessment? This is what the impact assessment says

Proposal
ONS proposes that the sex question remains unchanged. Subject to successful
testing, we propose that a caveat should be included in the sex question to
explain that a gender question will follow later. This has been found to increase
acceptability amongst the transgender and non-binary population.
Assessment
Maintaining the current question is important to preserve continuity of data in
respect of the protected characteristic of sex. The question on sex (male or female)
is established in the census, and it is essential to the evaluation of inequality related
to that protected characteristic. Consideration has been given to amending the
question to reflect a wider range of options, given that there is greater recognition
than previously of individuals who reject the traditional “binary” view of sex.
Nevertheless, the protected characteristic of sex as defined in the Equality Act
2010, and as relevant for the PSED, is whether a person is a man or a woman. This
binary concept of sex is, in turn, fundamental to the Equality Act 2010 definition of
sexual orientation and of gender re-assignment, and to the law on marriage and
civil partnership and many other matters. Consideration of this question therefore
needs to take these factors into account.
Amending the basic question to include other options, while of benefit to those
individuals who reject the binary view, would threaten continuity of data, though
that impact could be reduced by good design. There is a risk that redesign could
increase the number of mischievous answers and generate uncertainty, as well as
causing difficulty with third party completion.
There may be some negative impacts if rejection of a third category causes some
census respondents to fail to respond or respond less fully. Such effects would be
greater in some religious groups and amongst older members of the population.
This would result in undercounts of these groups. Similarly, any confusion arising
from misunderstanding of the revised question by people for whom English is a
second language could cause difficulty. Instructions to respondents drawing attention
to a later question on gender identity is likely to help mitigate negative impacts.

This is fantastic news.

This whole issue is making me angry. CriticalCondition - your summation is oh so true!

@PronounssheRa

Are the ONS proposing to ignore their own impact assessment? This is what the impact assessment says

Proposal
ONS proposes that the sex question remains unchanged. Subject to successful
testing, we propose that a caveat should be included in the sex question to
explain that a gender question will follow later. This has been found to increase
acceptability amongst the transgender and non-binary population.
Assessment
Maintaining the current question is important to preserve continuity of data in
respect of the protected characteristic of sex. The question on sex (male or female)
is established in the census, and it is essential to the evaluation of inequality related
to that protected characteristic. Consideration has been given to amending the
question to reflect a wider range of options, given that there is greater recognition
than previously of individuals who reject the traditional “binary” view of sex.
Nevertheless, the protected characteristic of sex as defined in the Equality Act
2010, and as relevant for the PSED, is whether a person is a man or a woman. This
binary concept of sex is, in turn, fundamental to the Equality Act 2010 definition of
sexual orientation and of gender re-assignment, and to the law on marriage and
civil partnership and many other matters. Consideration of this question therefore
needs to take these factors into account.
Amending the basic question to include other options, while of benefit to those
individuals who reject the binary view, would threaten continuity of data, though
that impact could be reduced by good design. There is a risk that redesign could
increase the number of mischievous answers and generate uncertainty, as well as
causing difficulty with third party completion.
There may be some negative impacts if rejection of a third category causes some
census respondents to fail to respond or respond less fully. Such effects would be
greater in some religious groups and amongst older members of the population.
This would result in undercounts of these groups. Similarly, any confusion arising
from misunderstanding of the revised question by people for whom English is a
second language could cause difficulty. Instructions to respondents drawing attention
to a later question on gender identity is likely to help mitigate negative impacts.

But you're forgetting the flouncing. Every bloody time certain groups have the vapours and threaten to flounce, organisations roll over. Would that social change was as easy for the rest of society.

"Plus grow a flipping backbone you're the ONS not a vegan cafe in Brighton!" Brilliant :)
I think it's a slippery slope and I'm certainly going to add a lettuce or two, but I suspect the statistics will still be useful, because the old school trans people will likely answer properly and there is no way on gods green earth that any of the wonderful new rainbow beings could bear to be invisible as just an ordinary female, they must be seeeen, and that can only happen if they answer the special gender question.
In the dropdown you can write what you want, but these answers can still probably be crunched statistically to work out who is what.

They can flounce as much as they like, but surely if the ONS are radically changing part of the census they need to revisit the impact assessment.

Government departments should not just make things up as they go along.

I fear I'm going to be putting a big red cross through much of the census, what's the point in completing it if the ONS don't care for accuracy

@MichelleofzeResistance It's such a stupid argument, anyway. It's logically akin to (though of course less extreme than) 'But people have always paid for sex and always will' or 'But people have always killed each other'.

The idea that something is rendered morally or politically justifiable because it's been happening for a long time is.... dubious to say the least.

If the ONS are a stonewall champion, does that make the census a political questionnaire now? I'm wondering if I can legally refuse to engage with it.

Isn't this the opportunity to get this issue truly national attention?

Every single person in the country has to complete the census. It is a national event that every single person cannot fail to be aware of and by law has to take part in.

Most people aren't aware of this ideology or haven't really thought about it or what impact it might have on them or their families.

I think a letter to the local paper based on the statement from FPFW is a good start. I don't think the people who read my local paper's letters page spend much time keeping up with what's happening on Twitter. I don't think they have much idea that this stuff is happening in the 'real' world. But if it's drawn to their attention they are exactly the kind of concerned people who will write to their MP, make a complaint, contact the local council.

Yes, I shall think very hard about how to register my protest on the form. And I'll be supporting FPFW in a legal challenge whenever that takes place. But this is a golden opportunity to bring more sunlight to this on a national scale.

Is there a non-twitter link?

I presume Green Party, Labour and LibDems are hunky dory with this? In despair I contacted Conservative Women and they are trying to raise it on grounds it gives no picture whatsoever of the number of trans people there might be and what services they might need in the future, ditto and not least women's services. They are also trying to work out how the form should be answered. It will give little or no help to policy makers or historians. But then didn't a lot of people claim bizarre religions on forms in the past? I understand ONS stood down on accurate sex etc in 2011 - if so we're all late to the game.

Thank you for posting this, OP. I enjoyed some digging....

I like the idea of putting religion as gender critical.

It comes to something when women have to inform the state that their belief in objective reality is a religious belief because that might be considered more justifiable than any other argument they can make.

The belief is gender identitarianism. The issue is compelled participation and enaction of that belief as the one true faith, with no agnosticism or atheism allowed.

Really all we need at this point is Cromwell and the insistence that we repeat the signing 'there is no such thing as Catholicism' in the church porches, and just cross out the Catholicism bit and repeat with 'biology and reality'. It's all very Tudor England, and this time there's no excuse of a mad monarch with syphilis who is death-warrant happy.

This is the perfect time to highlight the insanity of our government issuing false identification documents to adults....now that same sex marriage is lawful-why are GRCs needed? There is NO reason.

Why would men wish to claim the legal status of women? A multitude of reasons-some nefarious, which opens up a safeguarding loophole.

Men who identify as trans should be legally recognised as that.....