When, legally, must ONS change their guidance?

[MapGirlExtraordinaire]

I've just been reading through yesterday's chat thread about the ONS ruling. Thanks to all who tweeted and commentate, really good to read it as it unfolded.

I just checked back on ONS's twitter, also their website, and it's as though the ruling never happened.

They're answering all sorts of questions from people about access codes, stating overnight. They have not tweeted anything about guidance changing

In their website they have a section about what to put under sex, the various considerations etc. I must admit I haven't read them all but in the segment called 'Final guidance' the following was included (see pic).

So it's been nearly 24 hours and no action following the ruling.

Anyone know what the legal requirement is?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

There wasn't a census in 2010 so not sure where you are getting your information from.

Quit the bullshit, you know exactly what I mean.

I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that the U.K. census now has a question on gender identity, Evarish.
Combined with accurate data on sex, this allows for planning and public policy in everyone's interests.

didn't have any qualms in 2010 because I hadn't read anything about this and hadn't got any grasp of the ramifications. If I had then yes, I would have been concerned.

YY. It was a very different landscape in 2010. People thought transsexual people were a small group and exclusively people who had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder (as it was then) and had had gender reassignment surgery. They didn't think they were just people self IDing their sex without any medical diagnosis, and at that time it's likely that much fewer were.

So I'm assuming you had these same qualms in 2010 when trans people filled it out exactly the same as the writing asks for at current?

Iirc the 2011 guidance was not the same as this, and did indeed cause qualms. I think it conflated sex and gender and thus made the sex data invalid. Much better there are 2 questions this year.

The ONS was as much in breach then as it is now, but just because the threat to the integrity data was not perceived as so much of an issue then, doesn't mean it can't be addressed now.

*integrity of the data

I'm still confused why people are donating thousands of dollars to changing the text on a website when trans people will still vote as they see fit, similar to prior times.

Do you actually, legitimately, think this'll change anything?

TRAs: seeing all this through the (relatively selfish) prism of their own personal response

FPFW: care about integrity, data accuracy, long-term planning for trans people, calling out nefarious sleight-of-hand moves like opening up the census before census day, civil servants tied up by Stonewall ideology, and setting a gold-standard precedent for other data-gatherers to follow.

"People will lie anyway because they don't give a fuck about accurate data" isn't likely to be the compelling argument for the TRA position some people suppose it is.

If there is accurate data, and it indicates more trans people in the U.K. population than previous estimates, then this will help make a case for them to have more resources rather than needing to appropriate women's. This is as it should be. We aren't against trans rights. We want trans rights and services and women's rights and services, properly resourced according to need.

Some have clocked the bigger picture though:

HJ Giles (@HarryJosieGiles) Tweeted:
Some notes on the census for England and Wales.
twitter.com/HarryJosieGiles/status/1369585203480567808?s=20

We need lived sex in the census because it records the best data about trans people, not because it's affirming. We need lived sex on ID documents because it reduces active discrimination and harm, not because it's affirming.

Er. Isn't that exactly what has happened, now that we have birth sex and lived sex variables we have accurate data on trans numbers?

And also, completing the census on any date before 21 March is not 'mid-census'.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

"People will lie anyway because they don't give a fuck about accurate data" isn't likely to be the compelling argument for the TRA position some people suppose it is.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

"People will lie anyway because they don't give a fuck about accurate data" isn't likely to be the compelling argument for the TRA position some people suppose it is.

Yes, trans people will effectively erase their own existence if they don't answer this accurately. Which has an impact on all kinds of policy, health and funding decisions.

We need lived sex in the census because it records the best data about trans people

No it doesn't, because your biological sex, a critical piece of demographic information, won't be recorded correctly. You have the opportunity to record your "lived sex" in the gender identity part. If you put female for sex and then answer female, or non binary as your gender identity they may think you are an FTM trans person.

My understanding from the wording on the web site and reports of the Judges comments is that the earlier guidance said you could use the "sex" registered on any number of documents, eg driving licence, passport or whatever.

The new wording is that you should use your birth certificate or is you have a GRC that. So the ONS is now saying sex is validated by birth certificate or GRC.

And as I said on the other thread this bring us back to the fact that the GRA created a legal fiction. That it is possible to change your sex.

Also think that many who self identify will just put what they want.

And dont forget yesterday was just saying the FPFW had a good case so that JR has been bought forward to next week.

Presumably that will be the definitive arguement. And if it does go in favour of FPFW anticipate counter court actions - with no doubt well financed backers.

Yes. The point being made on this specific thread is that there is a page on ONS website referring to passports as being ok for sex question still. This comes up on a google search.

I was resonding to the questions about the census, not those who have used this thread to talk about search engines and cache pages from web sites.

NOt sure why all who have found inconsistent advice on the web site haven't just reported the web page to the ONS!

It's a good thing for people here to be aware of the* outdated info while it exists in case someone tries to use it as a gotcha, stumbledin*

I saw this problem early today and no cached searches. Very surprised after following case yesterday

I was resonding to the questions about the census, not those who have used this thread to talk about search engines and cache pages from web sites.

Yes, they've "used this thread" to talk about those things as that's what was relevant to the OP's specific enquiry about the web page.

And what the thread is actually about.

Having first been taken to the 2019 rehearsal data, with a fairly low key redirect, I was amused to read

Male and Female will appear in alphabetical order. I hope they do better in the real thing

But then it refers back to the rehearsal data

And under Final Guidance is the now outdated use birth certificate, GRC. or passport

And that last requires a gp letter stating "it is likely to be a permanent change"

I'm not convinced that's what was intended!

@stumbledin

NOt sure why all who have found inconsistent advice on the web site haven't just reported the web page to the ONS!

Because the report button on the page is for technical issues, you have to navigate away from the page to find to how to report the contents.