New guidance on collecting and reporting data about sex and gender identity in official statistics

[Imicola]

I've not spotted another thread on this, but I've just been made aware that the Office for Statistics Regulation has finally produced new guidance on how producers of official statistics should collect and report data about sex.

I've not read it in full yet...what I have read makes clear arguments about the need to ensure clarity around the use of terms (it doesn't provide standard definitions, but includes the interpretation of terms that they use, which I think seem clear), that sex and gender shouldn't be used interchangeably and that Sex is a protected characteristic.

I'll have a more detailed look later, but the one concern I have is that while it talks about ensuring the right response options are available (e.g. it talks about gender identity options including non-binary or whatever), it doesn't include anything mention of ensuring response options are available to cover those who don't believe in gender ideology/don't have a gender identity. In my view, any data collection which fails to provide response options which accurately reflect this means that factually incorrect data will be collected about some individuals, and this would be in contravention of the GPDR principle of accuracy (and will also undermine the quality of the resulting data).

There is an email address for feedback, so once I've read it all I'll send some in.

Collecting and reporting data about sex and gender identity in official statistics: A guide for official statistics producers – Office for Statistics Regulation (statisticsauthority.gov.uk)

A gender critical woman knows she is a woman (and the medical community would want that recorded as her gender identity) but she does not believe in gender identity. A non-binary person would generally agree with NHS service providers that gender identity is real, but they do not identify with any gender.

Asexual, for example, is a sexuality.

So we need to differentiate between the two. If every gender critical person was recorded as “non-binary” it would be bad data.

Nope. 'The medical community' do not want to record 'woman' as my 'gender identity'. There's no reason for 'the medical community' to do so, it is irrelevant as well as inaccurate.

PS any data recording 'non-binary' is already bad data, because it's recording an ideological belief with no agreed parameters and no relevance. You could probably argue that to do so would put an organisation in breach GDPR, since any organisation must only keep data it needs.

Hope to see you back on the WPATH thread btw.

That doesn't work for me. I'm not trying to be annoying, I genuinely believe that there has to be a way for people of differing beliefs to coexist happily.

The reason your explanation doesn't work for me is the switching between sex and gender and use of the term "woman" whose meaning also shifts. I'm not asking what the NHS thinks (I have family members who are HCP; they definitely don't agree with all the ways the NHS is currently managed).

I don't know I'm a woman any more than a transman or non binary individual observed female at birth knows (possible concession for severe learning difficulties). The difference between us is in the definition of the word "woman", in what we believe. I'm certainly not a woman under the trans ideology definition of the term.

I am still not persuaded that the difference is not merely in belief. And I don't see the cis / trans binary as creating especially meaningful data when both self id cis and self id trans share the same set of beliefs. In the same way monks, nuns, vicars and regular people can all be Christian.

@LentilFaculties the NHS want an answer to the question “are you a woman?” (or man, or whatever)

it makes no difference to them why you answer that question - it’s so they can treat you correctly outside a direct medical context. The fact you don’t believe trans women are women and that gender identity isn’t real has no relevance to them. Then they can treat you, outside of a direct medical context, as a woman.

There is no difference in outcomes to you or them the reasoning behind your answer.

Then they need to know what the sex on your birth certificate is. If they want to exclude or include trans women in women’s wards, for example, they can differentiate. They can send trans men the correct cervical smear letter.

They need a correct answer from people who literally have no idea about these issues, from gender critical people and also from transgender people. They need these answers without confusing or offending people.

How do you suggest they do it? That’s what we are trying to agree.

@nothingcomestonothing the NHS wants to record this data. They have good reasons to do so - they want to know how to interact with the patient.

If a gender critical clinician sees “man” and “sex on birth certificate female” they have the useful data that this is a trans man, regardless of whether they think they are “really” a man or not.

You don’t want them to record this data. That’s a different discussion to how to record this data.

I don't agree that there are good reasons to ask - I don't need to know your religious beliefs, to interact with you, and I don't treat people with certain religious beliefs differently to those with others, or with none.

Your example makes no sense because the commonly understood definition of 'man' means 'of the male sex', not 'of a male gender identity'. Recording a natal female as trans makes sense,if you want clinicians to know that about you, but recording them as female and as a man doesn't.

It is critically important than we all understand words to have the same meaning, in healthcare. There are several examples of transpeople suffering because their treating team thought that they knew that person's sex, when what they knew was that person's gender. It's not safe to use commonly understood words and mean something different by them.

@nothingcomestonothing I don’t even agree that peoples’ beliefs are irrelevant. The fact that someone is an Orthodox Jew, Jehovah’s Witness or Muslim can well be important in a medical context.

Of course, knowing the sex recorded on the birth certificate is important medically, and it’s captured here.

You don’t agree that the NHS should even gather this data. What data do you think they should collect which allows people to
be treated socially as they wish, notes whether they are transgender and doesn’t offend or confuse anyone?

If you won't agree to a blood transfusion because you're a Jehovah's Witness, then I need to know. Or if you need kosher food, housekeeping needs to know. Or if you're female and taking testosterone which has caused your dangerous blood clots (true story). But I don't need to know your beliefs to treat you respectfully, because I treat anyone respectfully no matter what they believe.

I think what you're asking for is for the NHS to collect medically irrelevant information from patients in order to change how staff deal with them. The NHS should be able to deal with people of any belief respectfully so that's not needed. Unless you want staff to change their behaviour and treat this group of people more favourably than other patients?

You’ve not answered the question.

Yes, the NHS wants to collect medically irrelevant data in order to understand how to provide a better service to them - not treat them more favourably. They also want to collect data for statistical purposes to ensure they are being inclusive. If there are, for example, worse outcomes for black women giving birth on average than white women that’s essential information.

They have said they want to collect this data. You don’t want them to. We’ll have to agree to disagree, as this discussion is about how to collect such data on gender and sex, not whether we should.

Fascinating as a debate on what data the NHS needs to provide appropriate treatment while showing appropriate consideration for a patient, I don't think that the Office for Statistics Regulation gives a stuff.

What questions would you ask to find out if someone was a woman, man or non-binary person, including the sex on their original birth certificate, which does not displease gender critical and transgender people, and does not confuse people not au fait with the debate?

I think we need to focus on accuracy rather than not offending people who struggle to accept reality.

i agree - I think we should try not to offend gender critical people when collecting data. I hope you see what I did there - there is no broad agreement in this. I suppose we could put a moratorium on collecting this data until everyone agrees.

Alternatively, we could try to find a way of collecting the data without offending or confusing people.

The phrase "woman, man or non binary person" only makes sense if understood as "woman gender ID, man gender ID or non binary gender ID".

It's like asking " are you Christian, Muslim or Jewish?".

Sure there might be times when data is ONLY required about people with gender IDs ( or ONLY people with religious faith) but for most purposes it is going to be necessary to also record the atheists.

Health care is about sexed bodies so sex female or male is necessary. If additional information is required for treating a patient with dignity - trans ID, religious belief, trauma sufferer - that is absolutely understandable but should be recorded separately.

it's not possible to collect data based on a fictional and misogynistic belief that people can change sex without offending the vast majority of people. your attempt to turn it round is odd because gc people don't have fictional beliefs. there is very broad agreement that we're sexually dimorphic and male and female bodies are different. I think we should ask 'what's your biological sex' (male or female) and then 'do you have a gender identity, if so what is it?'.

You may have misunderstood me. The information recorded about patients to support their non-medical requirements are one thing but should be kept separate from the data captured for statistical reporting to facilitate the understanding of the current situation and the prediction of future requirements.

Yes.
Make sure the question about gender identity has 100? boxes to allow for the ever changing identities. Plus of course there'll need to be days of the week boxes for the Pip Bunces of the world who identify differently on different days. Which just shows what a nonsense this all is.

Society needs to stop allowing the mentally fragile to dictate how the medical needs, data requirements etc of the population are catered for.

I think we should ask 'what's your biological sex' (male or female) and then 'do you have a gender identity, if so what is it?'

Exactly. Dadjoke's contempt for anyone who values sex-based reality is clear.

Gender identity is totally irrelevant to all but a small minority of people, and those people can have all their tick boxes, and free text field or whatever as long as a) sex is captured (with a note to make it crystal clear exactly what's being asked for) and b) people can decide to write n/a to the gender identity question.

You follow the OSR guidance which follows good statistical principles. Data collection is about clarity, consistency and accuracy and should not be concerned about displeasing people. Part of the problem we have now is the lack of accurate data collection and fudging that has led to incredibly poor data collection. Both mean children and vulnerable adults are being harmed because those with a vested interest do not want data collected, they certainly don’t want accurate data.

As I previously posted, based on the guidance

Sex recorded at birth (as recorded on original birth certificate)

• Male
• Female

or
Legal Sex (as recorded on current birth certificate which may have been changed by a GRC)

• Male
• Female

Do you have a Gender Identity ( add in definition)

• Yes go to Q ?
• No go to Q ?

What is your gender identity (add definition)

• Transwoman
• Transman
• Non-binary
• Woman
• Man
• Cis-Woman
• Cis-Man
• I don’t have a gender identity (Only if you direct everyone to this question.)
• Other
• Free text box to define other.

I have not added in definitions of for gender identity as I haven’t a clue what to put, how would you define it?

I think there is resistance to clear questions like that because it would expose the fact that most women don't have a gender identity and therefore there really is no basis for pretending males are women. Other than women don't matter.

Yes that's a good point.

Agree. And many transwomen* in the public eye are only interested in the superficial visual gender stereotypes. Not the more insidious, damaging ones like "take up less space", "shut up" and "be everyone's available (metaphorical) receptacle".

Edit to avoid sweeping generalisation. I do genuinely believe NATWALT but the media sure as fuck likes to promote the ones that are.

I think there is resistance to clear questions like that because it would expose the fact that most women don't have a gender identity and therefore there really is no basis for pretending males are women. Other than women don't matter.

Tbf, I don't think most men have a gender identity either. But it hasn't stopped this batshit idea from being propagated. And as far resistance to clear questions, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I think the general creep of gender identity into the public consciousness and the frequency we come across questions in surveys with the assumption that everyone has one means that a lot of people who don't think much about it just respond with what they think the question is getting at, rather than actually considering if they have a gender identity and therefore what the most appropriate answer would be. If the question was"do you have a gender identity, and if so what is it" it would probably give very different responses... as it would force people to decide if they have one or not. I think it would be a good option, after a question on biological sex.

Yes, clarity! Random thought: what about The Plain English Campaign? Where are they on this?