Sex Matters research shows the change from data collection of sex 1969 to "identities" 2020

[IwantToRetire]

The long-awaited report of a review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender commissioned by the government has been published.

The 226-page review by Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London sets out in careful detail the grave problems with official data in areas including health, justice, education and the economy.

The review finds that public data is in a mess. Many public bodies have stopped collecting data on sex, often replacing it with self-declared gender identity or a confused, undefined hybrid of gender identity and sex. This is the result of a series of successive shifts in public administrative records and surveys, with biological sex first labelled “gender” and then replaced by self-identified identity.

Full article https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/why-the-government-must-act-on-the-sullivan-review/

It’s not research by Sex Matters, it’s an independent review commissioned by the government last year

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67d98b8a4ba412c67701ed92/review-of-data-statistics-research-on-sex-and-gender.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawJH1rZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHY_hkhsrXjMZXsAHwuwyDZpRpXL8icRPbXgUg3k1sj7upD5YVeKJ65PejQ_aem_N4VyhTQ1DL7jyt0gGu_zUQ

Yes , it says this is the article. But I didn't make it clear in the thread title.

Although the Professor who carried out the review is part of a Sex Matters Advisory Group!

But either way the point is that this imporant information is now in the public domain, and Sex Matters have provided a useful commentary.

That's a very interesting graph. I had no idea sex being labelled as 'gender' was such a recent phenomenon. Confused, undefined hybrid seems to be what both my kids' school and my workplace are asking for.

article in the Times https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/sex-gender-review-alice-sullivan-25rgbk8vj
Also at https://archive.is/1Ku4Q

The funny thing is I remember it slowly changing and only a bit later realised why it was happening.

So initially I just thought that's odd. All the time i was growing up and later when starting work etc., everyone referred to peoples sex.

And I think like quite a few it was only when there was the consultation on reviewing the wording of the EA that I realised it wasn't just a fashion change, but a deliberate attempt to remove a word that represents a fact.

Also reported in the Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/19/police-and-nhs-must-record-biological-sex/

and at https://archive.is/5hYZs

Transgender patients not called to NHS screenings due to failure to record sex, review finds
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-data-gender-identity-nhs-police-review-b2718090.html

All the time i was growing up and later when starting work etc., everyone referred to peoples sex.

Now I think some more, there was a running gag about sex? Yes please. So it must have been sex when I was at school. Somehow when it changed I convinced myself it was people being old fashioned and prudish not a new thing.

Having a bit of a look at the report it is refreshingly clear, sensible and neutral. So doubtless will be branded as transphobic and resisted.

Having a bit of a look at the report it is refreshingly clear, sensible and neutral. So doubtless will be branded as transphobic and resisted.

BBC R4 Today prog included this in 7am news round-up. Female reporter said very firmly people can legally change gender but cannot change biological sex [paraphrase] and then said transmen need breast/cervical screening and transwomen need prostate checks! I am shocked it got through!

Sorry, I hadn’t realised she was on an advisory group. Agree the important thing is the report is out there!

Overall a good article but one wonders how the writer arrived at this sentence:

In one case a paediatrician said that a child had been brought up in the preferred gender of the mother, which was different to their birth-assigned gender.

This was a brilliant quote from Prof Sullivan which makes me think she is casting aspersions on Layla Moran's special powers :

“There are things that statistics cannot do. Statistics are not a means of personal self-expression. They can neither validate nor invalidate individual identities, and they cannot see into people’s souls.”

Prof Sullivan interviewed on R4 Today approx 7:45am. Important to collect sex as matter of course, gender ID if necessary. Interesting point about education around reason for collecting data for official statistics - not to collect individual life stories/ every nuance but population level info for planning services (I haven't read links above yet so maybe a common theme in all reporting.)

Then Thought for today started with "What is a man?". It was about toxic masculinity/lack of male role models/Netflix Adolescence but still good juxtaposition 😆

Given everything else that is going on in the world, this report seems to have got more coverage than I would have expected.

And discussed.

Which apart from the report itself is another small step.

I feel like we are finally coming to a point where it is being more widely accepted that this is a topic of interest. There are lots of national new outlets that report now, which is heartening progress from a few years back, when even major topics like the self-ID consultation didn’t receive attention.

This is what I have found with education documents. The first time that I found the phrase ‘gender’ in the DfE school output specification was 2023. It’s a new point to create a ‘identified as gender neutral’ toilet on every secondary school floor. Confusingly in the same document it says unisex for the front of the building, which is the term it has used before.

In 2020 ‘gender’ isn’t mentioned at all in the whole document.

Presumably ‘unisex’ will be replaced in the next issue?

(For what it’s worth, the DfE have confirmed you don’t need to stick to their output specification as long as you point out why)
edit to say: this guidance is for new schools and refurbs

The Telegraph piece is worth reading. The government won't commit to implementing the recommendations - so much for Labour standing up for women - and that's with a female Home Secretary.

I missed that.

What is going on in the heads of Labour.

As a Party that is always going on about how IT / AI will make life, the NHS better, what is the problem with having 2 boxes, first compulsory for sex ie male or female, and a second optional (and can be ignored when doing a health diagnosis) for gender which is open text and will never be used by care providers!

This article is in today's Scotland section of the Times.
I have no idea what Kevin Guyan is trying to say.
Responding to the review, Kevin Guyan, of Edinburgh University, criticised Sullivan’s focus on binary biological sex.
He said: “This catch-all approach to data collection goes against a fundamental principle of research design: methods should be chosen based on the specific question(s) under investigation.”

https://www.thetimes.com/article/2b27d8d1-81a4-4b38-97c2-b0a5828d2c00?shareToken=5008254e34072985535ed8bec07a52f3

Another old running gag facilitated by the use of the word 'sex' was
'a table showing the population broken down by sex and age'.