Suggestion for action

[WeeSisters]

I was thinking about how those who object to gender ideology could silently engage in passive resistance to make the system unworkable. Ultimately, the ideology requires people’s acquiescence and not many people are willing to go public for fear of losing jobs, being called a bigot etc.

So my suggestion is - any time a survey asks for gender, fill in the ‘Prefer not to say’ box or if not available, use ‘Non-binary’.

Companies require information on sex to monitor sex discrimination or to plan resources. They are allowed to hold information on sex without our consent but not ‘gender’.

If everyone who objected to gender ideology did the same, then surveys would quickly become useless. It could also start showing just how many people do not buy into this ideology, but without any individual needing to put their job on the line.

It may sound small but passive resistance is highly effective. There is no need to explain or argue, no conflict, just silent resistance.

I'm not ticking non binary or prefer not to say because both would imply I have some sort of 'gender identity' or believe an inner soul like gender is a thing, which I don't.

It's like asking if you are catholic or protestant or prefer not to say with no allowance for other beliefs or non beliefs.

Forced compliance.

Prefer not to say doesn’t do that. If you click ‘female’ it means you identity as a female stereotype.

But the aim is to make data collection based on gender useless. Data on sex is very important and is needed in so many areas. If people answer sex questions but give useless answers to gender ones, asking gender questions becomes untenable.

Imagine if NHS data was missing sex information as people were either ‘not saying’ or ‘non-binary’. They would not be able to plan services properly and so would need to start asking for actual biological sex.

I think this would have to happen with absolutely huge numbers for people to realise that the data was scewed.
Most likely outcome is they'll assume there are more trans people than thought and continue to bulldoze language to accommodate them.

Yes, it would need large numbers, but if even 10% of the population started doing it, the data would get so messed up and people would take notice.

It is very hard to be publicly gender critical. I have had to be anonymous on twitter as I follow too many gc people. At work, it would be career ending to speak out. When a pro-trans in women’s sports article is on the intranet, it gets very few likes, but to write a comment that having males in women’s rugby is dangerous is career suicide.

So we need silent resistance that people can do without risk but nonetheless is effective.

In my team, we monitor the pay gap, and the sex of those of different roles. Even 5% of women not declaring their sex would create a problem for our diversity targets.

I've been ticking the prefer not to say box about everything for years. Whenever it's available I use it. Because I prefer not to say.

I'm inclined to agree with the people that said this would just confirm the organisations' belief in the gender ideology and make them even more keen to change everything to suit the apparently increasing numbers of "non-binary" people.

What I do do, where possible, is tick the "other" (or similar) box if it has a free-entry field next to it, and then write in a comment to the effect that I don't have a "gender" but do have a sex, and sometimes (if there's space) that I find being forced to choose a "gender" offensive as I don't believe in it, etc etc... you can fit quite a lot in some of those boxes

Imagine if NHS data was missing sex information as people were either ‘not saying’ or ‘non-binary’. They would not be able to plan services properly and so would need to start asking for actual biological sex

Nah, it would just give them an excuse to cut budgets for any service for females