Urgent BH terfing- write to your MP TODAY 5th May on the Data Bill

[CriticalCondition]

I think this should have its own thread for visibility. The Data Bill is being debated this week and will introduce self ID by the back door unless an amendment is made. Sex Matters has a template letter on this to send to your MP. It will only take a few minutes but it MUST be sent today (Monday 5th) so please make this your Bank Holiday terfing.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/urgent-action-email-your-mp-today-on-the-data-bill/

'If' I wanted to pursue that, I think my tack would be, OK, please explain how you can dismiss the concerns of Sex Matters. They list numerous problems with the Bill that they believe the amendment will solve. Can you explain how/why they are wrong about that? Please show your working.

And tell me what 'lived reality' is. 😀

Honestly, some MPs. How to loose votes!

You could email her back with “well it is back in the bill now, but thanks for your helpful update”.

Ok, so the HoL didn’t adopt the exact same wording, but what they’ve passed today is sufficient to ensure that only reliable sources can be used to verify sex, which is the important bit. Hopefully the HoC will leave it alone now that it won’t mandate sex-based driving licences, etc, which seemed to be what much of the hand-wringing in the HoC was about last week.

What happened? My lousy Google-fu can't find anything. Is this Chris Bryant's "We're dealing with it" thing?

The HoL voted in something similar this afternoon - here’s the Sex Matters briefing on the amendment they passed.

It basically provides a mechanism for digital verification proving a person’s sex to be limited to data obtained from the departments who actually know that person’s sex (so likely just the original birth registry currently).

That's good, but the Commons can ignore the Lords, can't they? Parliament Act, or something? I'm not very clear about it.

It may well get voted out again as labour has a majority in the commons, but on the plus side, this version does take into account many of the objections raised last week (e.g. compelling orgs to record sex data), so we will see.

The great thing is that so many people in both houses are openly acknowledging that biological sex matters, which is incredible progress in itself!

For anyone wanting to read the debate, Hansard is here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-05-12/debates/45252051-8C6C-4193-A53D-AC083E777D08/Data(UseAndAccess)Bill(HL)

I am not sure the Parliament Acts would apply, because this Bill started in the Lords. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/ However, the HoL often acquiesces after things have ping-ponged a couple of times, on the grounds that the HoC is the democratically elected House. But at least they are currently forcing the Government to think about how to ensure accuracy on this point.

The point mentioned by a PP’s MP and by the Minister in the Lords, about not rushing without thinking things through fully, is a fair one: rushed law is often bad law. But sometimes you just have to get your thinking done quickly because a genuine problem has arisen, and this is (in my view) one of those times.

ETA sorry I meant to quote @moto748e re the Parliament Act, rather than @LonginesPrime.

That reads like a copy and paste email to send to all people who emailed about it, no matter whether they were for or against the amendment.

Thanks @AlexandraLeaving, agreed.

Just to add, though: in terms of rushed law, there couldn’t be a more fitting bill to acknowledge the problem without knowing exactly how to solve it today, but knowing it will nevertheless need to be solved.

I haven’t been following the other strands particularly closely, but since all the debates are a mishmash of all the issues (AI, artists’ copyright, scientific research, age of online consent, etc) it seems like lots of other ‘data’ areas are currently drafted as acknowledging the issue and making sure there’s a legal mechanism to deal with it over the next year or two (e.g. further consultation, research and reports) rather than having all the answers right now.

This bill is a perfect example of where the law is urgent to enable the govt to grapple with a growing issue, but the issue is so complex, sprawling and has so many competing interests (e.g. the fine balance between regulating vs stifling AI business in this country, AI development vs writers’ financial protection, etc) that if they waited until they all agreed to pass the law, it would be too late to deal with the problems coming over the horizon.

I think the current drafting on sex strikes that balance as it’s not jumping in to change the current system like NC21 was (which was still worth a try and generated a useful debate), but acknowledges the issue of inaccurate sex data that will need to be addressed before that data is used for digital verification. I don’t think that feels like it’s jumping the gun on the SC ruling, as all it’s doing is acknowledging that we need to assess where we are in terms of sex data, which we already know will be needed for at least some important purposes.

I agree, but the Government needs to throw resource at the issue in order to make sure that whatever text ends up in the final version of the Bill is sufficiently workable. That MAY mean accepting the HoL amendment or it may mean bringing forward an equivalent government amendment at the next stage (Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments) that has been worked through in detail by Parly Counsel to make sure that, insofar as it is possible, it is future-proofed and has been fully thought through.

It is more common, when Government accepts the principle of an Opposition amendment, for Government to bring forward a government amendment at the next available moment so that it can be sure that the drafting is robust. I hope they are in that territory and are currently assembling all relevant experts to make sure they can EITHER accept the latest amendment as draft OR bring forward something to the same effect.

Fingers crossed!

Got a response from my MP. Says Lib Dems are pressing the Govt to provide further guidance & clarity on what the SC judgment means for people. This guidance must uphold everyone's rights and dignity, including women and trans people.

He feels the reporting of the SC ruling has inflamed a toxic debate which we need to get past, so we can have a good-faith conversation about ensuring everyone's safety and dignity.

So no explanation of why he voted against the amendment.

That sounds like an improvement on previous Lib Dem stance, albeit not actually a good response.

But sometimes you just have to get your thinking done quickly because a genuine problem has arisen, and this is (in my view) one of those times.

I don't think this is the case. Women have been waiting at least 15 years for clarity on this matter. The sacred class of Transwomen, can wait a few months at least.

Meanwhile, you don't belong in women's changing rooms, you don't belong in women's sport.

I have had an interesting response from my Lib Dem MP. It requires me to read the bill and amendments in full and prepare a response based on my own professional use of data. So I'll be back in a couple of days.

Thank-you all for this discussion, which I will return to if I decide to write to my mp next time the bill is in the commons (if I can ever find it again!).
I'm really interested in how the government is planning to implement the sullivan review. I wrote to my Labour mp about that and the data bill ammendments. I see she voted against (as a labour mp no surprise) but she hasn't replied yet.

Yes, I am so looking forward to getting our sex-based data back (not yet, I know, but one day!) - I can’t wait until we can just pull sex data from the ONS to evidence a problem that disproportionately affects women without the data having been skewed by a load of self-identifying ‘women’ who don’t face the same issues.

I feel like these last few weeks where MPs and peers are actually talking sensibly about biological sex (for the most part, anyway..) and not treating it like a swear word is definitely a huge improvement on the past few years, so while it’s going to be slow, and several years of data will still be utterly useless for women, I’m hopeful that the Sullivan review will be implemented properly and we can eventually get things back on track, as the data loss of the past few years is an absolute travesty for women’s rights.

Can you give examples of data that is skewed? I think there are under 10k GRCs, and maybe 100k people who use a gender that doesn't match their sex. It feels like the skews should be in the noise- do I need to read the Sullivan report?

[Post deleted because of poor formatting]

Every form that says ‘gender’ when it means ‘sex’ is a potential loss of sex data, plus many IT systems have been set up to conflate gender and sex, so data collected as gender will then be fed into a field for sex somewhere else.

An example of how this impacts women’s rights would be the police recording crime statistics based on the criminal’s choice of gender instead of their sex. This then leads to an increasing number of supposedly female sex offenders and even rapists, despite the fact this crime is male-specific (aside from something along the lines of accessory to rape, which I believe females can commit). Then, when women say “we need single-sex spaces because men are disproportionately likely to commit sex crimes”, people who don’t want to give us single-sex spaces can point to the data (skewed by sex criminals obviously wanting to transition for multiple reasons once they’re caught) and say “well, it’s not really a male issue as there are lots of female rapists too”, so single-sex spaces won’t actually help.

Similarly, if ‘men’ can get pregnant, then it’s hard for a woman to claim sex discrimination for being pregnant, as an employer could argue “well, men can get pregnant too, so I would have treated you the same if you were a pregnant man”.

Without accurate recording of the data in the first place, women have fewer ways to evidence the need for the sex-based rights we need.

I wrote to my MP and earlier today received the reply below:

Thank you for taking the time to write down your thoughts on the Data use and access bill regarding amendment (NC21). I agree that this amendment would pave the way for more clarity concerning data collected regarding sex.

We must be mindful of the fear and worry this has placed in the trans community, but I’m sure you join me in providing assurances to the trans community across the country that Labour’s Equality Act is still there to protect them from discrimination and harassment.

In terms of protecting the recent Supreme court decision that comes with this data use and access bill amendment, we have a Minister for Women and Equalities with experience of protecting single-sex spaces, who ran a refuge for women fleeing abuse, who served on the APPG on Domestic and Sexual Violence – who knows the importance of these issues deeply and personally. The relevant people in the Government will always work to protect women's safety whilst also upholding the rights of Trans women.

This Labour government continues to have an ambitious agenda to advance the dignity and respect of trans people – with a ban on conversion practices, high quality NHS care and measures to tackle hate crime and we continue to have an ambitious agenda to advance the dignity and respect of trans people – with a ban on conversion practices, high quality NHS care and measures to tackle hate crime but women’s safety, privacy and dignity must be protected too.

I've emailed back asking why he voted against the amendment if he believed it would "pave the way for more clarity concerning data collected regarding sex". Truly baffling.

The post I tried to link to upthread was a bar-chart, showing all the Sex and gender questions in surveys held by the UK Data Service, 1946 to 2023.

Pre-1969, all question were about natal sex. By 2023, natal sex was referred to in less than 20% of the data sets.

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

I received this response from my Lib Dem MP yesterday:

“I will state plainly that Liberal Democrat MPs voted against this amendment, along with MPs from the Government and other opposition parties. During the debate on the Bill on 7th May, Liberal Democrat Women & Equalities Spokesperson, Christine Jardine MP, expressed concern about the implications this clause could have on individual privacy. While fellow Lib Dem MP Vikki Slade spoke about how this clause could endanger the rights of transgender people at home and abroad. Something which would contradict the ruling of the Supreme Court on 16th April.

My colleagues and I respect the judgement of the Supreme Court, and will work to ensure the rights of women are protected at all times. This amendment risked undermining those rights and of individual privacy, and that is why we chose to vote against it.”

Plus a bit of wibbling about eliciting strong emotions and requiring respect and great scrutiny etc. At least he replied, I suppose.

Intriguing, as so very different to the letter my lib dem mp sent.
How does the amendment risk undermining the rights of women, and who is "we", I wonder?