Census releases data on gender identity

[RoyalCorgi]

This is from the 2021 census:

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/bulletins/genderidentityenglandandwales/census2021

Only 0.5% of people identify as a different gender/sex from the one they were born with.

So why is legislation being pushed so hard to protect such a small group of people, at the cost of eroding the rights of much larger groups?

Otherwise you're left with 'well, you've said woman is a feeling that's nothing to do with the sexed body, so which sex are you saying it matches/aligns with?'

Yes.

One of the many, many tangled webs of this whole nonsense that demonstrates at the root of it, it is all about binary sex based thinking. If there is no fixed sex, what is anyone transitioning from or to? How can anyone be 'cis'?

It's a lot of incoherent nonsense from start to finish, and now so is the census data. Yippee, what truly progressive bullshit it is. How much did taxpayers pay for it?

Two things stand out for me. One is the equal numbers of trans women and trans men, which is odd - I'm going to guess that the trans men were a much younger cohort than the trans women. But it is something of a puzzle.

The other is the tiny numbers involved: 262,000 people who don't identify with their birth sex. That's roughly the population of Salford. The idea that Stonewall is persuading organisations to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on diversity training to appease this tiny group is astonishing. Likewise the number of schools pushing gender identity in RSE lessons or government organisations rewriting their maternity policies without the word "mother".

Compare the amount of money spent, for example, on diversity training about deaf or blind people, or non-English speakers, or even Romany people - all of which constitute a larger group of people than those identifying as trans.

I think I answered no to that, because I don't have a gender identity. Or if I do, I don't know what it is.

So why is legislation being pushed so hard to protect such a small group of people, at the cost of eroding the rights of much larger groups?

Two answers

1. the legislation is nominally to protect that small group of people you can barely see in the census, but it actually helps 50% - the men.

2. in progressive stack logic minority = oppressed, so the smaller the minority, the more oppressed you must be. And it's most important to help the oppressed. They do not accept Spock's "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" logic.

I think I did similarly.

I was not going to agree that I had a gender identity at all, because it was like being forced to tick one out of a selection of was I Catholic, Baptist or C of E. No. Not creating the impression (as is already discussed here on the thread) that 90+% happily agree they have a gender identity which is the same as their sex. Fuck that.

So that's at least two of us recorded as being TQ+ (other unspecified) when we actually meant 'do not forcibly involve me in this religion I do not believe in'.

Two of us is probably quite a big percentage of the 0.5%

If we can find the other three, we could form a club. With cake.

So there are 48000+ adults in this country that don’t know if theyre male or female. That’s a huge number. Seeing as census data is used for really vital things like NHS health provision planning related to sex, i just cant see the actual point.

I agree with point 1 - this is all about extending men's right to enter female spaces. There may be only 250,000 trans people in the country, but there are a hell of a lot more sexually predatory men.

I don't really agree with point 2 because, after all, there are a similar number of Jews in the country (271,327, according to the same census) and you don't see much being done to protect their rights. The same applies to Romany people who make up a similar size group.

It seems to me more likely that most people who identify as trans are white and middle-class and very skilled at promoting policies that work to their advantage.

So if there are such small numbers of people [less than 1%], then why are we making laws that put 51% of the population at risk just to satisfy these tiny numbers of people [from being misgendered]?

REPEAL THE GRA. It is pointless.

Good to see breakdown by area but shame there's no breakdown by age. Would be interesting to see how many trans identifying women were younger and how many trans identifying men were older.

Does this mean 93.5% of the population believe in gender identity as concept, as in these are people who believe that gender identity is real and believe that they have a gender identity which matches their sex? Does this give credence to having a mismatch between gender identity and sex or “being born in the wrong body”?

No, I don't necessarily think so. I am of the opinion that most answered without thinking about it too deeply. As in, it's just a tick.

I'm actually surprised how many responded to the optional questions, especially when the response to equality monitoring forms or intrusive personal questions from traditionalists is often "none of your bloody business".

I can’t remember how I answered this, but I don’t think I’d have agreed my (non-existent) gender identity matches my (existent) sex, so I probably ticked no and wrote “no gender identity”. Coffee and walnut cake ok with everyone?

Bit miffed I’m counted as trans in the headline, but I understand that I may in fact fall under the stonewall trans umbrella.

Or I might have refused to answer it [pushes plate away]

That'll be an own goal then. As this was the chance to show that the trans community is being poorly serviced. If the Q+ community can't tell the truth even when it would greatly benefit them then tough!

All anyone need do now is refer to this and say "We asked and this is what you said. We are dealing with it"

And SNP can look on in horror at what they have done. Never has so much been fucked over for so few!

I think ONS needs to tell us what they did with all the handwritten responses. This would be a great question for a backbench MP to ask in the House.

It’s interesting to see how small the numbers actually are, compared to the inflated percentages often claimed by TRAs, like 1.5 percent, 5 percent and so on,

And, as many of us pointed out at the time, this may well be significantly affected by the fact that TRAs were gleefully telling people (mainly TW) that they should just put in the sex they identify as. Which actually makes the number of trans people look much smaller. Something of an own goal, given that resource allocations for eg. healthcare are often based on census data.

Yes. Exactly.

All this was pointed out in advance. The answer was that it was more important people felt happy writing the form than the information gathered was any bloody use.

Which makes it a complete waste of the huge taxpayer cost. As someone said in the Scots parliament, we could just had the fictionalised version written by Hans Christian Anderson, or David Walliams and saved a lot of hassle. It'll be as much use.

With council tax zooming higher, the NHS basically dead on its knees and the police might get to you with a crime number in a few days if you're lucky? The morality and ethics of wasting this much tax payer money should be seriously investigated.

Anyone else donate to the FPFW crowdfunder?

fairplayforwomen.com/legal-grounds-fpfw-v-ons/

... the ONS wanted to let people lie just state which sex they identify as (because having to fill out a form which reminds you of your past is like, so transphobic) until Nic Williams pointed out that not only would this result in rubbish data but would also in all likelihood artificially shrink the number of actual trans people... 🙄

According to the Guardian article

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/06/sexual-orientation-census-undercounts-older-people-and-those-who-shun-labels

only 0.03% of respondents identified themselves as queer. And yet the Q word, which many find offensive due to its historical connotations, seems to be ubiquitous as the thing that we're supposed to use now.

I know of some people who just flat out refused to fill it in for that very reason.

www.thepinknews.com/2023/01/06/census-map-shows-most-lgbtq-occupied-places/

This PN piece is just bizarre.

They single out specific roads or villages - like Wokingham Road in Reading or Radley and Wootton near Oxford, which is weird enough.

But much worse, they are all over the place with the stats.

They talk about

• queer people
• LGBTQ+
• LGB+
• LGB
• gay community
• LGBO
• queer identity

...and then Jayne Ozanne comes out with this gem:

“University towns like mine (Oxford) show far higher levels of LGBT+ people (also found in Cambridge), pointing to an explosion of younger people being able to be their true authentic selves – and be open about it.

“The sad truth though is that there is still a significant proportion of society who feel unable to share – even in a confidential survey – who they know themselves to be.”

Or, there is an element of social contagion?

Or are you saying that - even in a confidential survey - people have lied, making an (expensive) nonsense of the whole thing?

Oh silly me, there I was expecting journalism from Prank News.