Fairplay for women take ONS to judicial review for redefining sex in census

[fatblackcatspaw]

fairplayforwomen.com/

Women saying they are men lessens funding for women's health issues is an implication.

Most important to me is that sex is a protected characteristic wholly aside from gender - to not even bother to record it accurately would be a pretty clear indicator that you don't take it seriously and aren't going to be taking seriously as a characteristic that needs to be monitored, recorded, have equality impact assessments upon it etc.

The trait of sex needs protecting and keeping clear if sex based rights are to be observed. Pretending sex doesn't exist and can be replaced by a feeling would be to deny that sex discrimination happens, that health outcomes (and needs) of the sexes are different and need addressing, that household income and sex might be connected and analysing etc.

I'm not sure I've understood your post correctly though disgusted as I didn't find it very clear and I'm not sure if what I'm saying answers what you were asking?

If the impact is insignificant, it must be insignificant either way. So let's just continue to reflect reality.

If someone has a legal sex marker as male through holding a GRC then they can select male. Otherwise what is a legal sex marker? I think that is the issue concerning people. There has to be a proper definition of sex otherwise people will interpret it to mean gender identity. Why wouldn't trans people want an accurate record of the number of people who have a gender identity that diverges from their biological sex. Surely that would provide useful data on how many people do have different gender identity and how it varies with age and biological sex.

You would think that people who cared about the healthcare of people who are trans would want there to be accurate census data wouldn't you?

Anyway, what do you call a man with a spade on his head?

Why would we not need clear and robust data on the numbers of trans people? As a vulnerable and marginalised group I think it's incredibly important that we have accurate information on this, to help target services and make informed policy. Why don't you?

So pleased to see this making such progress - 38 % in a day. And all from individuals with small amounts. Just shows how many women (and many men) are pissed off at this repeated overreach into every aspect of our lives.

The censor is a huge legal document. If sex doesn't matter on that then where does it matter? If it doesn't matter in the census then why should it matter on crime stats, health stats, poverty stats, income stats, etc etc etc. It's more like the fat end of the wedge than the thin end of the wedge in this instance. That seems really significant to me.

If there is a massive correlation between eg. race and educational outcomes then funding and action can be campaigned for. If there is a massive correlation between an ethnic group and a health condition eg. sickle cell anaemia then targeted funding and awareness raising campaigns and training medical professionals etc can take place.

The data matters and sex is as important and ethnicity or disability in that it is a protected characteristic the same as them in the Equality Act. The data informs policy, funding, investigations etc.

I don't want to hear in 5 years time that there has been an exponential rise in women convicted of sexually abusing minors if in fact what has happened is a rise in child abusers 'identifying as female'.

I don't want to hear that women are now better represented on the boards of top companies if what they mean is men who wear dresses on Thursdays and like plucking their eyebrows are being counted as women.

I feel the need to say etc a LOT because the implications and chains of consequences are huge.

According to the BBC a few days ago, it was merely "a step in the right direction"

I have just had to fill in an Health and Care Professions Council diversity questionnaire (I work in a profession regulated by the HCPC) which asked questions about my gender and sexuality, and whether or not I identified as trans, but not about my biological sex. Prominent statements throughout about having taken advice from Stonewall on the compilation of the questions. As the stated aims of the questionnaire include the following:

Without your diversity data we will be less able to understand where inequality or discrimination might exist across your profession, and less able to put policies and initiatives in place to promote fairness and help safeguard registrants like you

I feel they are going to be missing a big piece of the puzzle.

According to the BBC a few days ago, it was merely "a step in the right direction"

The right direction of inaccurate data? Idiots.

Two days to pay day! 🥕 🥕

40% now.

Brilliant! So many people donating it makes my heart sing.

Dug today.
Also changed gender to sex on the online survey I was sent for a company that delivers me vegetables, every little helps

This thread. There really aren't enough faces in the world

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1362411445208690695

Maya has her say also

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1362443262095740930

41% - excellent. I didn’t see this yesterday, so I’m off to find my trowel (probably left it in the mud somewhere.) Thanks OP & posters who’ve bumped this thread.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

According to the BBC a few days ago, it was merely "a step in the right direction"

The right direction of inaccurate data? Idiots.

We are in a post-truth era where "alternative facts" dominate.

@TheHoneyBadger

The censor is a huge legal document. If sex doesn't matter on that then where does it matter? If it doesn't matter in the census then why should it matter on crime stats, health stats, poverty stats, income stats, etc etc etc. It's more like the fat end of the wedge than the thin end of the wedge in this instance. That seems really significant to me.

If there is a massive correlation between eg. race and educational outcomes then funding and action can be campaigned for. If there is a massive correlation between an ethnic group and a health condition eg. sickle cell anaemia then targeted funding and awareness raising campaigns and training medical professionals etc can take place.

The data matters and sex is as important and ethnicity or disability in that it is a protected characteristic the same as them in the Equality Act. The data informs policy, funding, investigations etc.

I don't want to hear in 5 years time that there has been an exponential rise in women convicted of sexually abusing minors if in fact what has happened is a rise in child abusers 'identifying as female'.

I don't want to hear that women are now better represented on the boards of top companies if what they mean is men who wear dresses on Thursdays and like plucking their eyebrows are being counted as women.

I feel the need to say etc a LOT because the implications and chains of consequences are huge.

This^^

There seems to be arbitrary and random ideas of where it does and where it does not matter. Because you're quite right. Does it matter for certain, sacred castes of people? Or does it matter for everyone?

Who gets to decide where it does and where it doesn't matter? And why? What's the criteria?

Because none of it is following any law.

Just some feelings of some people.

It's nonsensical.

done

Donated.

Brilliant, have donated. It's getting expensive but I don't mind, it's all worth it.

Bumping
43% of the £70k target.
Over £30k

Donated - could only give a tiny amount but given it is well on track I guess it's almost as important to show huge numbers of individuals donating.

I've donated to things like Keira's case, Ann Sinnott's case amongst many others but THIS one was deemed important enough that both my adult child and my husband donated too! I did have to explain the issue to them first but they both agreed it really matters. And im proud because usually they listen to me prattling on about this stuff and nod in agreement but I feel alone, like they don't quite get it. This time they got it!