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

[fatblackcatspaw]

fairplayforwomen.com/

Thanks @Igneococcus

Donated

Are FPFW actually supporting the recording of legal sex (eg GRC) in the ‘sex’ category as the article suggests? If so, that’s still a problem IMO. It should be split into sex at birth, legal sex and gender identity if they’re going to be finicky. Legal sex has no place in the Sex category if we are using data to plan health services. It’s pointless.

I've seen transactivists arguing for blood donation by self ID even though an accurate record of sex is very important for donor blood as it could potentially kill a man if he uses donor blood from a woman who's ever been pregnant. It makes no sense at all.

Blood donation is by self-ID. They ask for gender, not sex.

The bit that gets me is all the people objecting to this, saying that it’s a transphobic fuss over nothing. Why bother campaigning when it will make such a small practical difference?
And yet - someone campaigned very gently to have it changed in the opposite direction, and it was done, without a court case or fan fair. I wonder why they bothered, if it was so trivial? And I wonder why this initial and opposite campaign was so much more immediately and easily successful? Can anyone think of a reason this might be?

@BettyFilous

Are FPFW actually supporting the recording of legal sex (eg GRC) in the ‘sex’ category as the article suggests? If so, that’s still a problem IMO. It should be split into sex at birth, legal sex and gender identity if they’re going to be finicky. Legal sex has no place in the Sex category if we are using data to plan health services. It’s pointless.

If I was to play devils advocate, there are stats on people who hold GRCs and those numbers can be applied to the census data accordingly. When people are self-iding, the stats are just a mess.

Seems ridiculous to have to campaign to get the truth on the census form but that’s where we are, so far down the rabbit hole it’s hard to see the way out.

I’ve dug 20 spuds this morning.

I don’t understand why anyone would oppose collecting accurate data on sex and gender, especially if you are campaigning for better trans healthcare provision etc.

These legal actions are where we can Really make effective change. They are vital. There is no arguing with TRA's and institutional capture must be pushed back against** the courts, using the law.

crowdfunding is the unique power of our wave.

Let's get this done!

Is there a campaign against supposedly neutral public bodies being signed up to codes of conduct/programmes set by a self-elected lobby group in the first place?

ONS being a Stonewall Diversity Champion seems to be in direct violation of the Nolan principles

“Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.”
www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2
This applies to individuals, but should it not apply to public organisations as well?

Could this form part of the JR?

As I understand from evidence given to the Scottish census committee by statisticians legal sex is less of a problem because you can cross reference the gender recognition certificates and identity that data clearly. I’d rather not see it in there but st least it can be worked around. Self ID sex is impossible to manage because you don’t know if someone is giving biological or legal or self ID sex because there is no way of telling. Even a person who ticks trans in the trans box might have chosen to put their birth sex in the other box so there is no way of being sure how they have answered the question.

I am concerned that the ONS on Twitter is trying to convince supporters of the judicial review that perhaps FairPlay have just got the wrong end of the stick and throw doubt on the issue. Fortunately anyone who knows FPFW’s work will know that they are far more likely to be right than ONS Twitter!

Yep, Dr Nic is sharp as they come and she doesn't have time to waste on pointless campaigns!

there are stats on people who hold GRCs and those numbers can be applied to the census data accordingly. When people are self-iding, the stats are just a mess.

well said @WeAreJackieWeaver

[quote Igneococcus]Here, I was just checking if someone had posted it yet:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/93e88008-72dc-11eb-bd2f-f33f509764cd?shareToken=4f67bde198d5860c4e3337da38b608ca[/quote]
If we copy this to the cats thread in AIBU will people be able to read it?

Not 100% on how the share tokens work

@BettyFilous

Are FPFW actually supporting the recording of legal sex (eg GRC) in the ‘sex’ category as the article suggests? If so, that’s still a problem IMO. It should be split into sex at birth, legal sex and gender identity if they’re going to be finicky. Legal sex has no place in the Sex category if we are using data to plan health services. It’s pointless.

I think they're being pragmatic about what's achievable in a few weeks.

Yes, 5000 GRC holders answering the sex question inaccurately isn't ideal, but it's better than the estimated 200,000 - 500,000 people who fall somewhere under the trans 'umbrella' doing it, with the full sanction of the ONS. As per the guidance they've just released, all you need is a passport (updatable on a self-ID basis) or an unspecified other (self) ID document. That's the bit FP are challenging. ONS have conflated legal sex with 'sex on an official document that lets you put whatever you want'.

Of course, plenty of people are just going to answer it on a feeeelings basis no matter what the guidance says, but that would be both dishonest and illegal, and the guidance should reflect that.

For this census it should be birth certificate, IMO - and for the next one, it should be unambiguously biological sex, with an optional spot to record your beliefs about gender if you want to.

@Cwenthryth

Is there a campaign against supposedly neutral public bodies being signed up to codes of conduct/programmes set by a self-elected lobby group in the first place?

ONS being a Stonewall Diversity Champion seems to be in direct violation of the Nolan principles

“Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.”
www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2
This applies to individuals, but should it not apply to public organisations as well?

Could this form part of the JR?

Yup - this is the big one and it's got to come to a head in 2021 / 2022 surely? it feels like it's heading that way.

just some of the things happening ...

• Allison Bailey suing Stonewall
• FPFW taking ONS to judicial review
• Legal feminist mass FOIA requests to public bodies about Stonewall
• Witnesses to the Women and Equalities Committee shining a light on the effect of being Stonewall diversity Champions
• GC Academia network sharing their personal stories and impact of Stonewall in Universities
• what else?

So yes, @Cwenthryth Holders of public office being Stonewall Diversity Champions = conflict of interest

We need a cross government review of Stonewall soon:

1. public bodies only consulting with Stonewall and allies

2. public committees only comprised of Stonewall and allies (like the Government Equalities Office LGBT panel )

3. using public money - TAXPAYER money - to pay Stonewall and allies

Done. Data integrity is important. We cannot move to a post truth world where people pick and choose what suits their own agenda.

Bump

@FindtheTruth

This is certainly what's needed. The problem is how to make it happen.

Welsh Government (committed to becoming 'a feminist government' - hollow laugh) is a Stonewall Diversity Champion.

It is literally impossible to uphold the Nolan Principles in those circumstances.

you can change the sex marker on a passport without a grc? really?
that's shocking

@redcandlelight

you can change the sex marker on a passport without a grc? really? that's shocking

Yes, and your driving licence.

I do find it still surprising that a GRC gives the right to change a birth certificate to your ‘legal sex’. Passport, driving license etc I understand and actually support if someone has a GRC - there’s no reason not to change these, as they’re updated as time passes and things change in life. But a birth certificate -a record of a child’s birth - it always surprises me that the law can allow this document to be retrospectively amended.

@Olderstyle1 there will be a way, don't know what but perhaps a way will open up with the court cases by Allison Bailey, MBM and FPFW. And if not, I think there are enough brains amongst them and others like Legal Feminist, WPUK and GC academia to come up with options.

perhaps I'm being optimistic but amazing things have happened in the last year and it's interesting when things get to court and the fluff is replaced by cold hard facts, like in the Keira Bell case.

My new credit card arrived this morning. I can think of nothing better to christen it with!