Scottish census sex question

[Meagaidh]

The Scottish census in March 2022 will not be collecting accurate data on sex. Its guidance to answering the What is your sex? question says:

If you are transgender the answer you give can be different from what is on your birth certificate. You do not need a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

If you are non-binary or you are not sure how to answer, you could use the sex registered on your official documents, such as your passport.

A voluntary question about trans status or history will follow if you are aged 16 or over. You can respond as non-binary in that question.

The census is used to inform policy decision making in the areas of sex and health, equality monitoring and education. How can decisions be made on data that is not reliable?

An independent policy analysis collective in Edinburgh, Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, is challenging this, but Scotland's Census has said it won't be making any further changes.

MBM post to their Twitter account @mbmpolicy whenever they have an update and their webpage is murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/sex-and-gender-identity-data-in-the-census/. They also have much to say on the GRA.

There's very little in the Scottish press about this; I have only seen coverage in The Times.

This is a hugely important issue.

@calmyourselfdown the consultation ignored women's groups and data users.

see the discussion in the MBM reports linked to by the op

@drwitch

Yeah it’ll make a real dent in the cabaret singer and female rugby player demographics ha!

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/academics-urge-msps-not-change-census-sex-question-gender-identity-1407959

Biological sex at birth can already be estimated based on (eg) birth registration data.

I live in Scotland, the Scottish (or UK) government however has no birth registration data for me or dp.

@TarasCrazyTiara
“@ScrollingLeaves
There isn’t going to be a mass trans exodus,”

From TransgenderTrend

“The total number of referrals for 2018/19 in England alone is 624 boys and 1,740 girls. In less than a decade there has been a 1,460% increase in referrals of boys and a staggering 5,337% increase in girls.“

That was referrals of young people to the Tavistock.
Those figures will not even include the numbers of people of all ages who might identify as transgender without any referrals for the purposes of the census.

@ScrollingLeaves

That’s next to nothing tho.

That’s next to nothing tho.

Well as I have already said , if the numbers are anything like the number of males who identify as women in female prisons, then the percentage could be up to 3 %

@334bu

Yeah but it won’t be will it? But you already know that so I have no idea why you or anyone would pretend you honestly believe 3% of women are trans. That is absurd.

Yeah but it won’t be will it? But you already know that so I have no idea why you or anyone would pretend you honestly believe 3% of women are trans. That is absurd.

So if nobody knows, how do they know it will not skew the data? If two separate questions are asked about these two very different things, then the picture will be much more accurate and services can be allocated accordingly.

5000% increase of just girls who are presenting to one clinic in so short of time represents a large rate of growth. The compound interest so to speak could be huge between one census and the next.

And if sex isn’t even put down on the census, no one will ever quite know the full extent to which the trans gender population has increased.

[quote TarasCrazyTiara]@334bu

Yeah but it won’t be will it? But you already know that so I have no idea why you or anyone would pretend you honestly believe 3% of women are trans. That is absurd.[/quote]
That's the point, isn't it?

Confounding the sex questions will only make it worse.

Asking specific additional questions about identity, trans status will allow those who need to be able to fund and provide appropriate services.

So 'being nice' and freely inclusive, as you seem to favour, won't benefit anyone.

Don't fall for the twaddle peddled about gender critical Feminists. We are not hate filled and we can logic out way through many a conundrum!

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

I don’t fall for anything and I don’t read enough about this stuff to even know much about what is written about gender critical feminists. But I don’t think any of this is particularly logical all around and you really don’t come off as logical as you all seem to think. But then again, I’m not any kind of feminist so whatevs I don’t really know why I’m wasting my time with this.

Whatevs?!?!

OK. If advocating for precise language and precise data collection is illogical, I'll take it. Might even make me a badge.

But, given that you haven't read much about the subject could I ask you stick around. Read a few more threads and maybe work out why this thread exists?

I know it sound ludicrous. I thought exactly that until I read a thread here that made me think twice. My turning point was sport - I am a sports scientist. Maybe something here will seem as obvious to you as men not performing in women's sports was to me.

It's a bizarre thing to do because if the numbers of trans people are included in their 'chosen gender' without a accompanying sex question, then the numbers of trans people will be hidden and trans specific services and support will be reduced as the numbers wouldn't support them while female services will be increased unnecessarily (maternity services or cervical screening projections which will include a population of 'women' who given their male bodies, will never need these services). It's just a strange own goal.

And regarding the scepticism in the increase in numbers, a family member lives in a tiny village in Scotland and there are no less than 3 teenage girls now identifying as boys in the two surrounding streets.

@Igneococcus

Biological sex at birth can already be estimated based on (eg) birth registration data.

I live in Scotland, the Scottish (or UK) government however has no birth registration data for me or dp.

Or for 40% of my family.

@Cheshirewife

Seems to me this is entirely what the census should do. If it is being used to estimate the need for services for those who identify as female, it needs to know who identifies as female. Biological sex at birth can already be estimated based on (eg) birth registration data.

So those who left Scotland wont be in the birth registration data or will be but are no longer there to require anything from Scot Gov. Those who immigrated to Scotland obviously wont be in the birth registration data but will need things from Scot Gov. Birth registration data can be altered, a transwoman with a male birth certificate can have it legally changed to female. And can legally answer the sex question as if they are female. But generally they dont require female services from Scot Gov. So skewing the data.

If we're just estimating data now, then why fuck around having an expensive census, just give a guess, itll be ok.

I don’t understand the perceived problem. If you want the number of birth biological males you take the male ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate ‘no change’ and add the female ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate a change. Simple in the extreme, as it would have been if the E&W census hadn’t been muddled by a change halfway through.

I don’t fall for anything and I don’t read enough about this stuff to even know much about what is written about gender critical feminists. But I don’t think any of this is particularly logical all around and you really don’t come off as logical as you all seem to think. But then again, I’m not any kind of feminist so whatevs I don’t really know why I’m wasting my time with this.

What is logical about asking a question about gender identity to get information to enable the government to set up services to meet the needs of the two different sexes?

I don’t understand the perceived problem. If you want the number of birth biological males you take the male ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate ‘no change’ and add the female ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate a change. Simple in the extreme, as it would have been if the E&W census hadn’t been muddled by a change halfway through.

Why not just say what your biological sex is and then if you want state a gender identity change? No need for any further calculations, simple.

[quote TarasCrazyTiara]@334bu

Yeah but it won’t be will it? But you already know that so I have no idea why you or anyone would pretend you honestly believe 3% of women are trans. That is absurd.[/quote]
That's not really the argument.

We're specifically talking about female children and young women, aged 16 to 24. In that age group estimates are that between 5 and 10% identify as trans in some way. Locally it can be even more than that.

And that is precisely how the data is then disaggregated and used.

Split by age
Split by locality
Split by sex

So if in one council your young residents in that age group are split 50/50 into male and female, but according to the census you have 10% of females identifying otherwise, your estimates are wrong by 10 points. You'll end up planning for 45% female and 55% male.

Take Glasgow Council. Age 16 to 24 estimated for 2020 was about 78,900.

Of which 39200 were male and 39700 female. That's 49.7% male and 50.3% female. If just 3% of females identified as male, you're underestimating provision by almost 1200. Even in a city the size of Glasgow, especially with services already overstretched, you cannot correct for that planning issue on the fly.

There's a reason that lying on the census is a criminal offence. We're not collecting this data out of idle curiosity, we're collecting it because we need it.

There's nothing simple or logical about a 'sex' question which might accurately record sex or might not - trans people can do either according to the guidance - followed by an optional question on trans status. Useless.

The ONS, after the legal challenge, managed to come up with much more coherent questions.

@RobinMoiraWhite

I don’t understand the perceived problem. If you want the number of birth biological males you take the male ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate ‘no change’ and add the female ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate a change. Simple in the extreme, as it would have been if the E&W census hadn’t been muddled by a change halfway through.

That presupposes that a male or female who has transitioned chooses to fill in the gender question. It's not mandatory to do so.

@RobinMoiraWhite

I don’t understand the perceived problem. If you want the number of birth biological males you take the male ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate ‘no change’ and add the female ‘sex’ figure where the gender question has been answered to indicate a change. Simple in the extreme, as it would have been if the E&W census hadn’t been muddled by a change halfway through.

It wasn't muddled it was hijacked.

And all you have outlined is a semantically different version of what many here have said would be logical.

The error in perception appears to be yours!