@ONS census figures lose status as official statistics.

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

In yet another episode of "The TERFSbwere right"

osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/osr-publishes-its-final-report-on-the-review-of-the-statistics-collected-on-gender-identity-during-the-england-and-wales-census/

Good commentary on this by Ella Whelan in the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/13/trans-activism-isnt-the-next-civil-rights-movement/

The phrase Lies, damn lies and statistics was made for this.

Alternative archival access: https://archive.is/3welF

This is no small mess-up – the sacrificing of proper data collection and common sense in the name of “trans inclusivity” is blurring fact from fiction. Census data isn’t provided for the fun of commentators like me to whip up a headline, but is supposed to inform policy decisions on everything from healthcare provision to community services. Inaccurately inflating the demographic picture in favour of one group could lead to a mismatch of resources. For example, the faulty Census showed that Newham and Brent were two of the top 10 local authorities containing people “whose gender identity was different from their sex at birth”. Given that both areas were listed as in the top ethnically diverse localities in the 2001 Census, it’s surely not a stretch to imagine that there might be other priorities for locals than opening up LGBTQ+ hubs.
…
But aside from what should be a mundane adherence to proper data collection, revised numbers of trans-identifying people in the country should also open up some questions about the oversized discussion about trans issues. In the name of trans inclusion, the school curriculum is being changed, the words “mother” and “woman” are being erased from healthcare policies, women are having their fair access to sport and spaces compromised by those with XY chromosomes and bankers are being told to share their pronouns. All this for a tiny proportion of the population. Minority representation is important, but the demonisation of what many people think is fact – namely that sex is real and women and men are different biologically – seems like an overreach to include the individual and personal desires of a small group of people.

Arrived with the link but thought there must already be a thread - and here it is. Another 'victory' for the idea that asking clear understandable questions about facts is somehow terribly hurtful. Am very relieved that they've put an asterix against that number though.

Another 7 years to come up with a better question. Or... not to ask the question at all? 7 years is quite a long time, maybe by then this won't feel very relevant any more.

Nancy Kelley has that kind of thick lipped malice. She is as dumb as a box of frogs and as cunning as an ex KGB.

Michael Biggs has an article in the Spectator (could read it in incognito)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-ons-finally-admits-to-flawed-trans-population-statistics/

And what's the road to hell paved with?

Good intentions.

(Sorry if that's already been mentioned - not read the whole thread)

No good intentions here, methinks.

What a disgrace. The Office for National Statistics can no longer work out how to collect statistics competently. Does genderism destroy everything it touches?

Fairly recently (I don't recall which thread), someone posted a semi-lighthearted item about parasites that take over the brain. It's not seeming that implausible when it comes to the destructive power of ideology backed by social contagion…

Frighteningly true.

This isn't about the ONS but it's on a related theme and i wasn't sure if it deserved its own thread. The NHS in Scotland have no idea how many people have the wrong sex recorded on their files

https://archive.ph/CsTRH bypass paywall

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/15/scots-nhs-unsure-how-many-trans-patients-changed-sex/

If only this could have been foreseen as potentially causing problems 😕

I wonder if NHSE has better records on this? I doubt it. And if someone comes from overseas with private gender meds, and misdeclares their sex, clinicians would have absolutely no idea. (This is particularly relevant to foreign students).

I'm a bit confused, as I thought this was already known? I swear we were told there was a suspiciously high correlation between wards with high rates of poor English and people identifying themselves as trans?

Yeah, it's not a new story, but this is about it being made official.

Actually losing status as official statistics is the newsworthy part and the OBR report.

Sorry, I was replying to @lcakethereforeIam without quoting. I was off on my own tangent!

It's infuriating, isn't it. They ignore people who point out the flaws, and they go ahead and collect unusable data. Surely there are actual professionals in charge of the ONS? Surely?

Heads should roll.

This is going to be covered on More or Less (Radio 4) at 9am this morning.

Thanks for the heads up!

So I'm very late coming to this, soz, but I have a question about the Guardian article.

I am not great with mathsing, especially first thing, but about this bit from that article: The overall proportion of trans people in England and Wales gleaned from the census (0.55%) is in the same ballpark as the 0.44% for Scotland. Statisticians north of the border posed a clearer question in their 2022 census: “Do you consider yourself to be trans, or have a trans history?”

Isn't there actually a big difference between 0.44 and 0.55? Like, that's a 25% increase? Yes?

Please help me out, People Who Understand This Kind of Maths.

Isn't there actually a big difference between 0.44 and 0.55? Like, that's a 25% increase?

Yes, you're correct. 0.55 is a relative 25% uplift on 0.44.

More or Less on R4 now will be covering this

Right, Tim Harford is on this now. Let's see if he puts his principles first in digging in to this. Or if he plays it safe.

Comes on Tim!