How the framing of the gender question in the Census has produced invalid data

[IwantToRetire]

The census data released this week added to the list of anomalies. Muslims are almost three times more likely than non-religious people to identify as transgender. Black people are four times more likely than white people to identify as transgender. In every case, the census results contradict what we know from other data. For example, referrals to the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service include far more white and non-religious youth than the overall population of the same age. By contrast, those census results are what would be expected if a number of people with poor English were confused by the question and inadvertently classified themselves as transgender.

The ONS has also finally this week released customised data showing the tabulation of gender identity by proficiency in English. As predicted, those who speak English ‘not well’ or ‘not well at all’ were most likely to be counted as transgender: 2.2 per cent of them, compared to 0.4 per cent of those whose main language is English (or Welsh in Wales). Adults whose main language is not English made up only 10 per cent of the overall population, but according to the census they contributed 29 per cent of the transgender numbers.

How did the ONS manage to produce such implausible data on gender identity? In ‘a case study of policy capture’, the statisticians were guided by lobby groups like Stonewall. It is surely no coincidence that the gender question replicated, with minor variation, Stonewall’s definition of ‘cisgender’: ‘Someone whose gender identity is the same as the sex they were assigned at birth’.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/

I'd forgotten about it too. Interestingly I think it was a pivotal moment in peaking many people. I recall the debates under some of the articles when people who'd been nodding along with the "be kind" lot suddenly realised that this was serious - that these deranged beliefs were being foisted on an unconsenting population with zero democratic scrutiny. Opinions started to harden and opposition more openly voiced.
Maybe did us a favour - and of course, the evidently false final data now clearly demonstrates the harms of this statistical nonsense.

Muslims are almost three times more likely than non-religious people to identify as transgender.

Even at the first hurdle of analysing the (maybe dubious) data that they have, they've fallen spectacularly.

Why is somebody following the Islamic belief system considered religious, whereas somebody following the belief system that you can change sex (even if it's deliberately framed in a woolly, ambiguous way where gender sometimes does and sometimes doesn't mean sex, we can all see where it's headed), is NOT considered to be religious?

At least Muslims don't usually try to force non-Muslims to accept their beliefs as undeniable fact that everybody has to agree with, or otherwise be prosecuted/persecuted/shamed/cancelled.

Sorry haven't rtft. In terms of survey design, you should define any terms that your respondents might not understand.

That's one of the most basic rules of survey design and one of the first things that you learn. That's what makes this even more embarrassing and outrageous.

Agree with Jacqueline. Standard practice is for surveys to the piloted and questions rephrased if people misunderstand them. It looks as though all of the ONS pilots sought to ensure that trans people were happy with the questions. As a result they were framed using TRAs' internal specialist language. Easily decipherable by the informed hags of Mumsnet. Absolutely baffling to the 8-year old kid who is translating these Very Important questions for their mum and dad. Entirely predictable (and predicted).

To *be piloted 🤦‍♀️

@IwantToRetire I agree this is hugely embarrassing for ONS and very disappointing. It also proves yet again the arguments for accurate data collection need to be listened to, I have always questioned why TRA are so opposed to this.

I had hoped accurate census data would support sensible debate about proportionality of the law, provision of services and future policies. 2030 is along way away and so we have appallingly unreliable data for the next 7+ years.

I wonder how TRAs, Stonewall etc. are going to treat this data?

'Slight over representation'

No, that emperor is stark bollock naked. This information is thoroughly fucked up and is therefore pointless. It cannot be used for its purpose which was for planning and development for populations.

The ONS did this knowing the wording was very badly organised, that it had not been properly tested, that what would come back would render the whole survey useless.

They did it as the lobby groups commanded.

I would now like the ONS to be frank about the money, including man hours, they just spent to do this pointless vanity project to stroke Stonewall, rendering the whole outcome pointless, and useless. But it made less than 1% of the population feel nice while filling it in. Batshit.

As gender has more in common with religion than any other kind of census question then it would be simple to mirror that and ask (along with 'what is your sex?') 'What is your gender identity?' with a free text box and people can put whatever they feel is right for them.

As gender has more in common with religion than any other kind of census question

Maybe they could include it in the list of religions to tick, if you have one. I know they never would, but I mean that quite seriously - they could always title the section 'Religion/Faith/Personal Belief' if they insisted.

I agree with you Oddboots but TRAs would never accept that trans is just a belief system about the self. Their whole house of cards rests on gender identity being an innate, fixed and universal facet of being human.

Their whole house of cards rests on gender identity being an innate, fixed and universal facet of being human.

Bizarre, isn't it, when those identities seem so fluid and changeable amongst those who subscribe to it?

I'm sure that, were I to invent a completely brand new 'identity' and then get it trending, before long, there would be a significant amount of people claiming that they are it, and have always immutably been so.

Is this person a real statistician or just identify as one I wonder?

Seemingly for a lot of top jobs you don't actually have to be an expert just have the right connections.

The real statisticians at the ons must be pulling their hair out over this. Actually have a uni friend (real statistician) who works at the ons who I'll ask....

[email protected]

if you want to complain/query

I struggled with the gender identity question myself. How can it match my sex when gender and sex are two different things?

Lots of trans people do think that they have changed sex though, so do we actually need:
•what was your sex at birth
•what is your sex now
•what is your gender now
•is your gender fluid

It it about changing the organisation to a place with some degree of competence to a place with absolutely no competence or value but which spends it's time affirming the atheoretical desires of a group of powerful men?

Or a simple question about 'what is your sex (this is the sex you were at birth because sex can't change)? The problem with asking about your sex at birth and your sex now is it gives (not so) subliminal messages that people can change sex. Which of course they can't.

Prof. Alice Sullivan talks about the national census and the importance of accurate data collection in the Silencing Women: Academic Freedom and Unthinkable Thoughts talk which held in Swansea Uni in South Wales recently. Well worth a listen!

Yes, in many households the children would be translating for a non-English speaking parent.
In the other thread a poster tried putting the gender question through a translation app and then back into English, and got questions such as:Does your gender match your birth gender?
Does your gender identity match your birth gender?
Does your gender match where you were born?
Does your gender identity match your gender by birth?
Does your gender match?
Does your identity match your gender?
Is your gender identity the same as your birth partner?
Is your gender identity the same as your penis?Is the man you saw the same as your husband at birth?So not surprisingly, the data is not useful.

Argh. That brings back horrible memories of working for a very 'progressive' firm where staff performance evaluations used to include modern, exciting questions like 'does this person get on the bus?'

Which used to garner replies such as 'I have no idea what information you're looking for'.

The question they used supposedly was not tested except among the alphabet group. It should have been extensively tested outside it, too.

It has at least two major problems: The first is that there is no way to know if people actually possess something called 'gender identity' or if most people 'identify' or not with their biological sex.

For those of us who don't believe in the existence of an abstract gender identity the question just forces us to pretend that we do, in order to go on answering the questions. There is no answer stating that the question is not relevant, for instance.

So strictly speaking many might have answered that their gender identity does not match the sex that was registered at their birth because they don't have an abstract gender identity to begin with. All those people would then be counted as transgender.

The second is that the language used there comes from the transgender movement, is not familiar to most outside it, and yet this was simply ignored by those who created the question. Especially for those who don't speak English as their main language the question might have seemed impossible to understand. Sex, for instance, is not always registered at birth in some countries recent immigrants come from, and in some languages there is no way of distinguishing 'gender' from 'sex'.

Even for those who speak English and grew up in the UK the question what 'gender' might mean here is left unexplained. Is it sexist stereotypes about being a woman or a man?

Seems a likely way to look at it, so if this question is asked of a feminist woman she should, strictly speaking, state that her gender identity does not match her sex, because 'gender' now seems to refer to all the nasty stereotypes second wave feminism tried to get rid of, such as women wearing makeup, high heels, short dresses, women being submissive etc.

As others have stated, this whole movement is a giant "sexism strikes back" movement.

I think we all did at the time. For me now it's too late. A whole bunch of us donated to the fairplay crowdfunder for the court case too.

There wont be any more cenus's/census' censi?
So it doesnt matter any more.

Or

What was your sex at birth? Male/female

Have you changed your registered sex through GRC? Yes/ No/ NA

Do you consider yourself 1) Trans 2) Non-binary 3) Other identify (free text box) 4) N/A

Would have been interesting for the question above to filter responses to first three boxes to another question to ask for age range when this change occurred.

There should also be brief definitions of GRC in plain language along with trans and non-binary although the latter would be problematic. Don’t like the choice of ‘identify’ as an option but couldn’t think of another term, no real way to stop that becoming like the Jedi response from a previous census.

Been a long time since I worked in research, so what do I know?

Is there a phrase for knowing you were right are the time but ignored, and then at a later time you are proved right but people keep saying that you aren't right!

Sometimes being on FWR is a bit like that! We should send a memo to all government departments and say before doing anything start a thread on FWR and then we will know what we really need to do!

The ONS were so captured by the trans lobby that Fair Play for Women had to take a successful challenge to the courts

I had forgotten this but made me think we need like a "milestones" thread were we keep a record of challenges to the trans narrative, and the outcome.

As well as (and I am sure this has been said before) someone needs to draw up one of the family tree type charts showing were certain individuals have managed to get into positions of influence, which lobby groups they are part of, and friendship circle. The TRAs but the Freemasons to shame.

On design of surveys, I dont know the answer, but even as and everyday box ticker, everyone must be aware that using obscure words or phrases that are only common to a few is just a big no no.

The same, but in a different context, some women's groups are now talking about "minoritised" woman. And usually this is because their group has come underpressure for not being aware enough about the exclusions of minorities.

Nothing wrong with that, and good that the think about it. But to most women as readers of the statements from women's groups who read about women being minoritised probably think what? who?

Too often these types of pharses, as in the gender id questions, the priority is virtue signalling to a small group you want to impress, be in favour with.

And of course also as other have commented, important for those who have english as a second language.

One can only wonder, assuming humans are still around, what someone in a hundred years will make of this census question.

But again as said upthread, and on another thread about including asexuals under the rainbow umbrella. How is it that such a tiny group has been given such rights to appropriate everything?

Imagine if it wasn't queer theory that was subverting most parts of our life, but for instance communism, would everybody just sit round going, good for you, you are so brave.

Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?

As another poster said, I found this hard to answer because sex is a fact, whereas gender is a human idea. It felt like it was asking ‘is your religion the same as your eye colour?’ or something.