Some common sense at last (data collection and statistics)

[AltitudeCheck]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-data-statistics-and-research-on-sex-and-gender/review-of-data-statistics-and-research-on-sex-and-gender-executive-summary

Apologies if this has already been shared, I had a look and couldn't see that it had. Hopefully a sign that public surveys and data collection will soon be much clearer.

"The default target of any sex question should be sex (in other words, biological sex, natal sex, sex at birth)."

"Questions on gender identity should recognise that the concept of gender identity as such will be unfamiliar, unclear or irrelevant to some respondents, and that many respondents may not perceive themselves as having a gender identity."

"When reporting on or discussing issues relating to sex, it would be desirable to see a shift to using the term ‘sex’ instead of gender, given the ambiguity of the term ‘gender’."

"Both people’s material circumstances and their identities are important to their lives. We know that sex affects many dimensions of people’s lives, and we have much to learn about the ways in which having a transgender identity matters too. Rather than removing data on sex, government and other data owners should collect data on both sex and transgender identities, in order to develop a better understanding of the influence of both factors and the intersection between them."

Other than the terms “Natal sex” and “Sex at birth” which both imply those things can change (as does biological sex, I suppose, though we have yet to find out whether there is a new category “legal sex) that sounds like sensible advice.

It has always been the case that any reference to “gender identity” should have been a well-explained add on. The fact that everything got undermined so deeply should be a lesson to anyone in power of how activists can deliberately skew information for their own ends. Not knowing the stats for the relative criminality of male “women” is a scandal in itself as that information is so important and was obviously obscured for a reason.

There were a few threads when the Sullivan report was published, including about media coverage, so there has already been quite a bit of discussion.

Yes, but the point of this thread is that it helps make us all aware what the Government is (currently) saying.

In the end we rely of whichever Government we have to put in place guidelines that organisations have to follow.

So thanks to OP for highlighting this step "forward".

Hope others will at least read and see this even if they dont comment.