Sex and "The Data (Use and Access) Bill" - Supreme Court Ruling Undone by Stealth?

[KnottyAuty]

A new thread to discuss what might be done about this potential disaster for accurate data recording on sex and implications. As before, if sex data is not recorded this will be default, government backed gender self ID.

"Core to this bill is a trust framework for “digital verification services” (DVS) to allow people to exchange verified personal information about themselves easily without relying on paper documents"

In other words a male can register with the app as a female, and the app will create a type of pass for entry into any single sex space.

Background briefing from last December:
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Summary-report-Sex-and-the-Data-Bill.pdf

Briefing on the Amendment for accurate recording of sex - MPs voted against last Wednesday (7th May):
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Data-Bill-briefing-%E2%80%93-Amendment-NC21.pdf

Many of us will have emailed our MPs after this thread last weekend:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5328897-urgent-bh-terfing-write-to-your-mp-today-5th-may-on-the-data-bill

Many of us have had no reply. Others have received a reply and been called transphobic by their MP! This is despite public opinion clearly hardening against self ID on YouGov polls.

The Bill is going to the Lords next Wednesday 12th May.

What can be done to press for accurate recording of sex in this new digital ID system?

Can anyone explain what this means?
Is the government still trying to avoid accurate sex data?

Yes, the government is still trying to avoid accurate sex data.

32B and C, along with 52B and C are the relevant amendments on sex.

We haven't reached 52B and C yet, but 32B and C were voted in favour of the government (i.e. against us) by 371 to 98.

(NB this is as I understand proceeding, by no means an expert!)

All listed here:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0238/240238.pdf

It means they've gone to vote.

As expected, all Lords amendments defeated in the Commons. A committee will now be formed with Chris Bryant as chair. Guessing this is where the horse-trading will happen.

Is that the same Chris Bryant who says his trans child is “terrified” about having to have their actual sex on an electronic ID?

I have no idea about his personal circumstances, only that he is the Minister in charge of the bill.

Here is what the formation of a committee means:

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5532/committee-to-draw-up-reasons

No, fair enough - I think I might be misremembering a quote from another thread discussing the bill.

Apologies @TwoLoonsAndASprout if my response came across as a little bit snippy! I really know very little about Bryant (apart from knowing I don't like him at all )

All good 😊

https://sex-matters.org/posts/homepage-carousel/government-admits-that-passports-are-not-reliable/

I don't understand all the details but Sex Matters have said.
https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1922710942090952975?t=4imSQkj_lgB91zNTKrVnrw&s=19
The amendments are out (for now) but there has been very significant movement from the government on the #DataBill

@RhonddaBryant has said that it is unlawful - against the data accuracy principle - for public authorities to mix up gender identity data and sex data in their records.

Now the law needs to be enforced

Rosie has tweeted

https://x.com/RosieDuffield1/status/1922737354550178012?t=4imSQkj_lgB91zNTKrVnrw&s=19
Labour encouraged every one of their GC MPs to miss tonight's vote. They wanted full control, so much so that they couldn't even allow less than 20 rebels to vote against them on a matter of principle. This is indeed significant because it's part of their general direction...

They wanted full control, so much so that they couldn't even allow less than 20 rebels to vote against them

Dreadful to see this, even now.

I now know where I know him! It’s the same MP who tried to stop a new clause to make having sex in public toilets illegal. He said it was discriminatory against men because he had searched in vain to find any case where two women had had sex in a toilet. It’s in Hansard. He reckoned most toilets were unisex and private (I disagree with him there). It was an interesting debate from Dec 2003. He made some points about sex in hotels etc. which I can understand the nuance.

I have researched toilet legislation in Hansard in the past and I thought I recognised the name.

If you make public toilet cubicles/rooms completely private then you can’t see what’s happening in them which is useful if it’s illegal. But that’s precisely the wrong thing to do for safety. Because what if something bad is happening in them? And the safety gaps are more important than being disadvantaged that you can’t have a shag in a public loo without the threat of prosecution.