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.

That's true. As with the E+W census it also relies upon people giving honest answers. Something the sex question has never been subject to before.

We know that, in defiance of the guidelines and calls for common sense, many TRAs and maybe some trans people, filled in that sex question falsely. They crowed about it all over social media for days.

Actually, maybe you can explain this question I have about the strategy pursued here by trans rights campaigners, RobinMoiraWhite.

When I attended the parliamentary debate about the census question, it was clear that one, possibly the main, reason for the underprovision of the trans community was the lack of accurate data about their size. What we have is not up to date. We know we have around 400 GRC-holders and an estimate from Scottish trans organisations in 2003 that 40% of the trans community would not seek medical support and so not qualify under the original GRA. At a bare minimum then we know we have just under 700 members of the trans community living in Scotland. Many in Edinburgh and Glasgow, as this is a pattern repeated elsewhere (small numbers rurally, more in big cities where there is then also more support).

Of course, waiting lists for a first appointment of between 7 and 33 months for an adult referral tell us that we have a much bigger trans community in Scotland than just 700.

Just for Glasgow, in the 27 months to March 2021 there were adult 1068 referrals to the Sandyford clinic. Edinburgh will be the same. Numbers have been steadily rising since 2013.

For 2015, 16 and 17, we have 966 referrals to the children's and youth service. For 18, 19, 20 and 21 we have at least another 800.

If you add them all up, that's more than 5000 referrals across child and adult services over the last 8 years.

We're probably looking at 5000 to 10,000 medical referrals altogether, which is 0.1 to 0.2% of the total population. Add at least another 2000 to 4000 (that minimum of 40% who won't ask for a referral).

Yes, that's a tiny percentage and its far below even the more conservative estimates from Scottish trans organisations. But the prevalence of gender dysphoria in children which is used for planning purposes is much lower than that still. Around 6 in 100000 for children (0.006%) and for adults the prevalence rate of transsexualism is estimated (lots of different ones) variously as 1 in 10,000 for males and less than half that for females.

It's almost impossible for anyone to estimate, and the estimates we have are often based on referrals to a clinic, so they're not going to include those who are not going to or have not yet sought medical support.

Planners may well be underestimating need by a factor of 100. But in a stretched NHS, stressed economy and the fraught budgeting circumstances of the Scottish government mean that no planner can justify allocating the necessary ressources, whether that's the NHS or any other public service. Not without evidence of need and not when trans healthcare is just one of many struggling NHS services in Scotland.

And the census gave us a chance to rectify that. If I was running a trans rights organisation, I would have asked everyone to fill in the sex question as per birth sex or legal sex. Then encouraged everyone in my community to fill in the gender question accurately.

When the data is analysed, for the first time you'd get accurate numbers to argue with. Numbers that will impact provisions for the trans community for decades.

But no. Instead there's this insurmountable short-termism in play. An affront to self-identification. So the census won't capture even a fraction of the trans community. And for what? So you can win a debate in 2021 but ensure underprovision until 2051?

@TarasCrazyTiara

What a storm in a teacup. The info will still be accurate as only about 0000000.1 of the population will be trans.

But but but under stonefalls guides, we are all trans. Makes a mockery of the whole census.

Thankfully the rest of the UK are standing against the woke shite.

Not to mention as with the religion question and multiple people identifying as Jedis. People get fed up and if some people are going to put down the data they would like to have instead of which they actually have, then relying on me to stay in my box and be sensible to minimise the consequences? No.

If some of us get to make it up then we all do. Or taxpayer money and the intense amount of time stops being spent gathering fictional data that now has no real purpose because it's pandering to immediate feelings and preferences and has lost all sight of it's actual purpose or a sense of social responsibility.

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 recently read a tweet by a transwoman which said "I'll be putting female on the census and also filling in the bit that says 'are you trans?' I'm 100% confident this will give accurate data."

Anyone looking at the resultant data will see someone who is trans, but not be able to tell if the sex question has been answered as "sex" or "self-identified sex". If it's the former then the respondent is a transman - the opposite of what is actually the case. This is the problem with the guidance produced by the NRS.

Throw in the fact that the trans question is entirely voluntary and you can see that there is no way we can ever work backwards from the data to establish accurate figures on either sex or trans status.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

That's true. As with the E+W census it also relies upon people giving honest answers. Something the sex question has never been subject to before.

We know that, in defiance of the guidelines and calls for common sense, many TRAs and maybe some trans people, filled in that sex question falsely. They crowed about it all over social media for days.

Doesnt the census always rely on honest answers? Anyone ever had the census police visit to check their answers?

Doesnt the census always rely on honest answers? Anyone ever had the census police visit to check their answers?

No, but then this is the first time the Government is actually encouraging people to lie when answering the census.

“Doesnt the census always rely on honest answers? Anyone ever had the census police visit to check their answers?”

Yes, we did have a visit from someone who wanted to check the answers. It does happen.

@334bu

*Doesnt the census always rely on honest answers? Anyone ever had the census police visit to check their answers?*

No, but then this is the first time the Government is actually encouraging people to lie when answering the census.

Quite.

Frankly if it's going to be a work of fiction and we're all good with this, then let's employ David Walliams to sit in an office and knock up it up, and we'll save a lot of taxpayer time, money and effort. It will be far more entertaining and probably about as much use. The census costs a lot to administer and process; there is absolutely no point if it no longer serves a purpose for the populace because some of the populace feel that their personal sense of self is more important than provision of services and planning for all.

Frankly I think it's rather selfish.

There are threads on this from when it came out a while back.

Big hooha.

England court challenge wording was changed

Scotland no change. Can't remember if court but definitely it was strongly challenged.

Those threads are full of interesting stuff.

England I'm sure it's illegal to lie on census.

(Could be wrong/ different in Scotland).

But no. Instead there's this insurmountable short-termism in play. An affront to self-identification. So the census won't capture even a fraction of the trans community. And for what? So you can win a debate in 2021 but ensure underprovision until 2051?

I’ve always wondered this, too, charlie. But it seems that Robin doesn’t care to answer, unfortunately.

And yes, FWIW, in 2011 in Scotland I had census checkers at my door who went through the forms with me in detail and in person.

“It doesn’t matter if you lie a bit, the data doesn’t have to be super accurate” really is an astonishing position for anyone to take. The whole point is the accuracy of the data

“It doesn’t matter if you lie a bit, the data doesn’t have to be super accurate” really is an astonishing position for anyone to take. The whole point is the accuracy of the data

Exactly this!

Hopefully this will be challenged in the courts.

Oh dear!
They need to include biological sex AND gender identity for a truly accurate picture.

@TarasCrazyTiara

What a storm in a teacup. The info will still be accurate as only about 0000000.1 of the population will be trans.

Of course you won't know that if you don't know how many of the population are transgender

Doesnt the census always rely on honest answers? Anyone ever had the census police visit to check their answers?

As I said the factual, mandatory questions have never/rarely been challenged before. Everyone knows what their sex is. The vast majority of people wouldn't, didn't play politics with those questions, especially as there are potential legal ramifications for doing so. Rare it may be but yes, I know a couple of people who have had their census data checked, it does happen.

But, as you are aware, you were briefly on at least one thread about it, the last census in England and Wales was traduced by many TRAs who deliberately lied and crowed about it on Twitter.

If I remember rightly you 'held a position' on their rights to do so, despite the clear explanations given in the much discussed guidance notes.

You also aren't blind to the ramifications of skewed data. You've been here on threads discussing that, you are an educated person, you know the issues. Don't be so disingenuous.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

Doesnt the census always rely on honest answers? Anyone ever had the census police visit to check their answers?

As I said the factual, mandatory questions have never/rarely been challenged before. Everyone knows what their sex is. The vast majority of people wouldn't, didn't play politics with those questions, especially as there are potential legal ramifications for doing so. Rare it may be but yes, I know a couple of people who have had their census data checked, it does happen.

But, as you are aware, you were briefly on at least one thread about it, the last census in England and Wales was traduced by many TRAs who deliberately lied and crowed about it on Twitter.

If I remember rightly you 'held a position' on their rights to do so, despite the clear explanations given in the much discussed guidance notes.

You also aren't blind to the ramifications of skewed data. You've been here on threads discussing that, you are an educated person, you know the issues. Don't be so disingenuous.

Not to mention with the endless media soundbites about how rotten trans healthcare etc is, you'd think there would be a connection between this and the need to know how many trans people there are in the UK to be able to predict need, allocate funding and services and solve that problem. If the point is solving the problem rather than having the problem and talking about it. It would also enable planning around the problem of a set number of people who feel entitled to arse about with the data for personal reasons.

But no, apparently it's people's rights to do what they want, cause problems, render the census pointless, and then moan about the lack of proper services. I'm really reaching the point of ffs grow up.

Yes! The skewed thinking really does amount to cutting off noses to spite faces.

The childishness of it is only matched by the sheer spite of it!

" 0000000.1 "
Pffffffff. I think someone failed their O Grade Arithmetic

@CharlieParley

Actually, maybe you can explain this question I have about the strategy pursued here by trans rights campaigners, RobinMoiraWhite.

When I attended the parliamentary debate about the census question, it was clear that one, possibly the main, reason for the underprovision of the trans community was the lack of accurate data about their size. What we have is not up to date. We know we have around 400 GRC-holders and an estimate from Scottish trans organisations in 2003 that 40% of the trans community would not seek medical support and so not qualify under the original GRA. At a bare minimum then we know we have just under 700 members of the trans community living in Scotland. Many in Edinburgh and Glasgow, as this is a pattern repeated elsewhere (small numbers rurally, more in big cities where there is then also more support).

Of course, waiting lists for a first appointment of between 7 and 33 months for an adult referral tell us that we have a much bigger trans community in Scotland than just 700.

Just for Glasgow, in the 27 months to March 2021 there were adult 1068 referrals to the Sandyford clinic. Edinburgh will be the same. Numbers have been steadily rising since 2013.

For 2015, 16 and 17, we have 966 referrals to the children's and youth service. For 18, 19, 20 and 21 we have at least another 800.

If you add them all up, that's more than 5000 referrals across child and adult services over the last 8 years.

We're probably looking at 5000 to 10,000 medical referrals altogether, which is 0.1 to 0.2% of the total population. Add at least another 2000 to 4000 (that minimum of 40% who won't ask for a referral).

Yes, that's a tiny percentage and its far below even the more conservative estimates from Scottish trans organisations. But the prevalence of gender dysphoria in children which is used for planning purposes is much lower than that still. Around 6 in 100000 for children (0.006%) and for adults the prevalence rate of transsexualism is estimated (lots of different ones) variously as 1 in 10,000 for males and less than half that for females.

It's almost impossible for anyone to estimate, and the estimates we have are often based on referrals to a clinic, so they're not going to include those who are not going to or have not yet sought medical support.

Planners may well be underestimating need by a factor of 100. But in a stretched NHS, stressed economy and the fraught budgeting circumstances of the Scottish government mean that no planner can justify allocating the necessary ressources, whether that's the NHS or any other public service. Not without evidence of need and not when trans healthcare is just one of many struggling NHS services in Scotland.

And the census gave us a chance to rectify that. If I was running a trans rights organisation, I would have asked everyone to fill in the sex question as per birth sex or legal sex. Then encouraged everyone in my community to fill in the gender question accurately.

When the data is analysed, for the first time you'd get accurate numbers to argue with. Numbers that will impact provisions for the trans community for decades.

But no. Instead there's this insurmountable short-termism in play. An affront to self-identification. So the census won't capture even a fraction of the trans community. And for what? So you can win a debate in 2021 but ensure underprovision until 2051?

This!!! ^

There does seem to be an astonishing childish cutting off their noses to spite their faces attitude to the census amongst trans people.

If they want and need better services then surely we need accurate data. Deliberately answering the census questions in a way the underestimated the trans population seems pretty counter productive.

What a storm in a teacup. The info will still be accurate as only about 0000000.1 of the population will be trans.

It's the ridiculousness of having to guess the number of trans people, and then using that to endorse your argument to not accurately record them!

And yes, complaints about waiting lists and not enough provision do seem a tad hollow when they go out of their way to ensure that it continues.

What benefit is there is knowing the number who identify as female? It says nothing about transgendered provision, it says nothing about sex-related medical care or planning, it tells us nothing about sex equality....

@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's not true.

I've checked, the OP has quoted the census guidance correctly. Here it is again:

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.

Note "could" not "must" use the sex registered on official docs.

This breadth of choice creates the following situation. Four completed censuses are received:

One has ticked "male" and "non-binary".
One has ticked "female" and "non-binary".
One has ticked "male" and not answered the voluntary question on gender.
One has ticked "female" and not answered the voluntary question on gender.

How many people with prostrates (ie who could get prostrate cancer) is that?

Because with those guidelines, it could be anything from 0 to 4.