Sex Matters: Digital identity verification can end the gender wars

[ResisterOfTwaddleRex]

Sex Matters have stated that "Digital identity systems could also solve the “gender wars". They say that "The census suggests that as many as 100,000 people may have changed the sex recorded on some of their documents".

What documents? These ones:

"NHS records and government documents such as passports and driving licences do not record sex accurately, since people can change the data that is recorded with a simple request."

We are to believe that this can be solved with something that's: "not a national ID-card system, but rather a means to ensure that digital identity information is standardised and trustworthy so that everyone can prove who they are, and relevant facts about themselves (called “attributes“), without presenting physical documents"

As part of the justification, they say that:

"When government bodies and lawmakers decided to allow individuals to change the sex recorded in government systems, they didn’t think of any of this. They thought they were simply accommodating a tiny number of people, not that they were making those systems unworkable for everyone"

Anyone who's read the Hansard will know that is not correct. The issues we are living through now were raised. Raised and brushed aside.

This is quite without the somewhat blase attitude towards "digital identity", which some might regard as distinctly illiberal, and a very serious societal change, placed in the hands of the state. We are meant to take it on trust that this will work, our data will never be compromised, it will never fall into the wrong hands.

It's not clear why the problem is categorised as "gender wars". What we are currently experiencing is a wholesale dismantling of safeguarding processes and systems. It's a safeguarding problem and it needs a safeguarding approach in order to fix it.

What are we being walked into, and why?

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/digital-identity-verification-can-end-the-gender-wars/

x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1849780109097492497?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

KPSS as I said is now closed. They changed prison policy. Safe Schools have done a lot too eg evidence to Parliament on safeguarding. They tried to build support for an inquiry after Cass and were all but ignored by the "women's groups". It's been well rehearsed on these boards.

I also found this post a bit confusing when I saw it on LinkedIn a few days ago.

I agree with what’s been said about safeguarding and the questionable benefits and serious risk of Digital ID at all.

I wonder if what SM are trying to say is that if the Gov introduces digital ID it should be done this way to make sex clear?

If that is their message, their post is uncharacteristically unclear. But if the writing is on the wall about having digital ID (and I don’t know if that’s the case or not) then it might be pragmatic to campaign for it to be implemented a certain way rather than oppose it altogether.

ETA - typos

I think the point is that unlike existing physical ID docs which are all or nothing, a digital ID scheme can be set up so that anyone checking it only sees the fields they need to. So it can have an uneditable sex marker and previous names without exposing trans people to the horror of people seeing their actual sex unless they really really need to. That invalidates the arguements that were made for changing the sex marker on existing records.

Then the argument will move to whether sex matters in a case by case basis. Medical sex yes obviously, previous names probably not, marriage no, age check at the pub no, DBS previous names definitely, and so on.

The crucial thing for Sex Matters is I guess to establish body sex as part of that ID from the start. Moves the argument to When sex matters not Whether sex matters. If the scheme starts without a commitment to capturing an uneditable value of sex they will have an uphill battle to add in later.

The ‘gender wars’ would end if people stop thinking it was reasonable for dicks to invaded female only services.

This. Stop telling male people they are welcome in women's spaces. They are not.

This worries me.

How far would it go and what would a digital passport be used and necessary for?

Think about this. In theory this is sounds like a good idea in a liberal society. But look at China. Look about how terrorism laws were created certain things but then subsequently applied to others. And then theres the security implications

It makes me think about four things:
Firstly the level of Big Brother this could give to intelligence services that goes well beyond just ensuring that you don't do criminal acts online. Its fine until you have a government come along and decide to go beyond the original remit of a digital passport to control the population and any possible political dissent.

The second is the unintended dark side to this: a digital passport becomes a valuable thing. That also means it has value to criminals. You could ruin someone by gaining access to their digital passport and doing something criminal. Vulnerable people are particularly at risk.

The following is copied from this source about county lines and organised crime:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-exploitation-of-children-and-vulnerable-adults-county-lines/criminal-exploitation-of-children-and-vulnerable-adults-county-lines

Forms and methods of exploitation
County lines exploitation can be perpetrated by individuals or groups of any gender or nationality and can appear unsophisticated or organised. It is typified by some form of power imbalance, which perpetrators use to force, coerce, groom and/or entice victims into county lines activity. They can employ several methods to do so, such as:

• offering an exchange – carrying drugs in return for something, such as money, clothes, drugs, status, protection or perceived friendship, a sense of belonging or identity, or affection;
• physical violence or threats of violence – used to intimidate and punish victims and their families and can involve weapons, including knives and firearms;
• abduction or kidnapping – sometimes victims are forcibly moved and held in a location away from home;
• emotional abuse or psychological coercive control – by manipulating, threatening, controlling or monitoring the movements of the victim;
• sexual abuse and exploitation – this can be experienced by all genders;
• blackmail – by forcing victims to commit a crime so they can hold it over them and threaten to report it if they do not comply;
• the use of social media, messaging apps, gaming sites and other online platforms – including marketplace websites and smart TVs to target and communicate with victims. These modes are used by exploiters to falsely build online trusted relationships, or to post fraudulent job adverts which seem legitimate, or to cyberstalk victims in order to groom, entrap and coerce them into county lines activity;
• “cuckooing” (also known as “forced home invasion”) – a tactic used by criminals, typically drug dealers, to take over the homes of vulnerable individuals, such as care leavers or those with addiction, physical or mental health issues, and use the property as a base for criminal activity. This is a common characteristic of the county lines business model and can occur in a range of settings such as rental and private properties, student accommodation, prisons, and commercial properties;
• coerced internal concealment (also known as “plugging”) – the practice whereby a child or vulnerable adult is controlled or coerced into concealing drugs internally as a method of transportation to avoid detection. Drugs or sim cards are usually concealed within a condom or similar packaging and inserted into a bodily orifice (rectum or vagina) using lubricant, or swallowed;
• debt bondage – a form of entrapment when a victim owes money to their exploiters and is made to repay their debt, either financially or through another means such as transporting drugs. The exploiter may groom the victim by initially providing money or goods which the victim will then be made to pay back. The exploiter may also deliberately manufacture a debt, for example by staging a robbery of drugs or cash in the victim’s possession in order to extort money from families or to ensure the victim will continue to perform tasks for them. The debt may also be inherited from parents and siblings; and
• financial exploitation – financial exploitation can take many forms. In this context, we use the term to describe exploitation which takes place for the purpose of money laundering. This is when criminals target children and adults at risk and take advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, control, manipulate, or deceive them into facilitating the movement of illicit funds. This can include physical cash and/or payments through financial products, such as bank and cryptocurrency accounts.

The third point is the one we are familar with on MN. The harassment issue. If you post online with a digital passport, who has access to your digital passport identity and can this be used in anyway to track you elsewhere online or in real life. This has particular significance for those who may have been victims of abuse. Harassment on MN even with anonymous user names, is an ongoing issue. I reflect on whether a digital passport would solve issues of harassment or just cause them to evolve in different perhaps worse ways.

The fourth and final point is about trust in the system. Government created digital passports have to be trusted. If there are issues with any of the above in any way, then people will look for ways to go outside the system. A darker online world with potentially even less accountability and ability to police. Or it acts to make particular groups disengage with digital technology and social interaction - potentially silencing them and pushing them out of political engagement and important public debates

My problem is that the idea of a digital passport is usually discussed as a magic bullet solution, rarely with any discussion of these pitfalls, never mind the real level of depth the above points need to give justice and due consideration it deserves on to how to counter potential problems.

All we hear is how 'everything will be solved' with a grotesque level of naivity that people who don't understand the politics of communication have.

Any technology can and will be used by criminals. It will be hacked/copied etc. And, as Red says, that's assuming the State is always fundamentally benign.

No. Just no. The whole thing is ridiculous. What % of the population does this supposedly help (apart from the fact it doesn't address any of the core issues), it doesn't. Let's set up a new passport system to help 0.001% of the population ? No!

Where is this leading to? Are people to carry around a special card to "prove" what they are and any time they want to pee they need to have it scanned by the toilet guard?

Sadly we seem to have a group of unfortunate men who appear to be unable to follow the social contract. The social contract where citizens abide by society's rules & conventions without needing "guards" to monitor them. I'm not sure where these people have come from who believe that women must provide their undressed or toileting bodies on demand?

Maybe you could enlighten us @Christineapple ? Why is it that some men are unable to abide by society's rules and conventions to stay out of women's spaces without, as you suggest, a personal monitor or "guard" to stop them?

For anyone who has not seen the relevant KPPS page and report:

DIGITAL IDENTITIES

"Our own conclusion . . . is that digital identities do not achieve more effective safeguarding: in fact they create additional risk."

https://kpssinfo.org/digital-identities/

DIGITAL IDENTITIES:
SAFEGUARDING SOLUTION OR SAFEGUARDING RISK?
June 2023

https://kpssinfo.org/kpss-digital-identities-pdf/

This is the definitive objection imo, by KPSS from the above link;

''Our own conclusion, however, is that digital identities do not achieve more effective safeguarding: in fact they create additional risk.

Firstly, the methods by which a digital identity is created mean that where an individual's sex registered at birth has currently replaced by their legally recognised acquired gender or by self-declared gender on documentation to establish identity, this will simply be transferred to the newly created digital identity. In this situation, sex registered at birth is information that is simply unavailable. The result is that where an individual's sex registered at birth should be disclosed, it cannot be because the unavailability of this information continues in the digital realm.

Secondly, there is every indication that the enhanced individual privacy rights currently given to an individual who changes gender as part of changing their identity, resulting in the of their sex registered at birth on identity credentials and on other documentation including Disclosure and Barring service certificates, will also apply to digital identities.

This means that even in the future situation where all data recording by the State IS transferred into the digital realm, an individual who changes gender will remain able to ensure that their sex registered at birth is suppressed. In short: there is no evidence that sex registered at birth will be an accessible and disclosable attribute where an individual wishes to have their acquired gender, self-declared gender or gender identity recorded instead.
Our view is that the enhanced privacy rights that individuals who change gender to conceal their sex at birth should be challenged.

However, the proposed "solution" instead expands these rights to all people to enable everyone to withhold their sex registered at birth in certain circumstances. Whilst the difference between those who do and those who do not change gender is eradicated, this simply serves to bolster the erroneous notions that sex registered at birth is something to which blanket privacy can legitimately attach and that withholding sex at birth is without consequence.

Our final concern is that digital identities create their own safeguarding loopholes and risks because their use creates a •distance' between the individual and the organisation with Statutory responsibility for safeguarding during the process of identity verification.''

Thank you @POWNewcastleEastWallsend for those links. Big Brother Watch also has concerns about digital ID. Hopefully as a concept, it will not wash with the British public. It's a massive massive overreach and it will not solve the ludicrously named "gender wars". The core problem of safeguarding must be addressed. Which means repealing the GRA.

Big Brother Watch is organising against digital ID:

x.com/bigbrotherwatch/status/1856750154960835058?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"🪪A digital ID system could usher Britain into becoming a giant database state

Parliament will debate the new #DataBill which includes plans for digital ID next Tuesday.

This is YOUR chance to say #No2DigitalID⤵️"

bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/campaigns/no2digitalid/

With ways of writing to your MP to say no, and ask them to ensure there's an opt out

To paraphrase where you're going with this "show us your genitals so we know you're not a pervert". Do you see that something might be wrong?

That isn't to even mention how this affects intergender people of all varieties.

Sorry just seen this.
I and my bff are falling about thinking of dicks invading female spaces!
"No, v's only, absolutely no d's allowed"
Sorry we had many other (funnier) comments that I daren't share here.

Where I live we have to register with fingerprints taken and the identity number is used all the time. No problem. However this has not stopped the law changing to allow any man to change “gender” , and to allow them wherever they wish to go.

That's because they are men and whoever heard of men being denied anything?
Sorry I am particularly ANN0¥€D today!

Wow. Seeing what's happening to people being not-investigated-but-investigated for non-crimes, and then not being told if they're facing a charge or not, or what their so-called offensive words were, I find this way of doing things truly frightening. Imagine the damage could be done to you if the state had everyone's fingerprints AND these levels of power and control. No thanks!

Here in the UK I can change my name to Harry, change my sex indicator on my passport to Male, change my sex indicator on my driving licence to Male, change my sex profile with HMRC to Male, change my sex indicator on my NHS record to Male and even change my MN username to one that suggests that I am Male. All without recourse to a GRC. What will a digital ID do to clear up that shit?

I fink I know. it's nuffink, isn't it?

Is intergender when you wear a skort with flowers on the front and tanks on the back?

I rather want one of those, now.

Related to this (not a million miles off). Poll in Sunday Times

Readers’ poll: should the UK have digital ID cards?.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4ceba288-9d4f-45c2-a8b7-6264caa28236?shareToken=bddd332ae840c3302311d2ed636a8ef99_

This is currently 93% in favour of having digital ID.

Perhaps Sex Matters may now realise they backed the wrong horse:

x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1896545135305072991?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

<waits>