Statistics watchdog cuts ties with Stonewall after census debacle

[IwantToRetire]

The ONS had been a member of Stonewall’s flagship diversity champion programme since at least 2006, but its severing of ties has now come to light.

A spokesman for the ONS said that “lessons learned from 2021 will be incorporated” in the planning for the next census in 2031.

Documents released under freedom of information laws show that the ONS consulted closely with Stonewall ahead of the 2021 census on the question: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?”. It was the first time the census had surveyed gender identity.

The census’s transgender data was later stripped of its accredited status in 2024 as the question had been widely misunderstood, leading to dubious spikes in the data.

Prior to the break, the ONS collaborated closely with Stonewall and other LGBTQ charities and lobby groups. It met with representatives from Stonewall 31 times, Gendered Intelligence four times, and Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES) four times between 2018 and 2025, according to a freedom of information request.

Other information requests showed that in a 2018 meeting between the ONS and transgender lobby groups, including Stonewall and GIRES, some attendees argued the census’s gender identity question “could be asked of those aged two and above”.

GIRES urged the ONS to ditch the minimum age completely “because gender identity is not age dependent and therefore age is irrelevant”.
Officials from the department for education, who were also present at the meeting, are noted in the minutes as saying there was “clear justification for asking the question to those under 16”.

NB - this is not the whole article, just paragraphs I have picked out!

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/24/statistics-watchdog-cuts-ties-with-stonewall-after-census/

And at https://archive.is/0NTIO

Thanks OP & about time!! One by one the bricks fall....

Is there any national body in the UK which has not been corrupted to the point of imbecility?

I couldn't quite make out (and I did read the whole article!) is have the only just done this, or in fact did that do it a while ago and it has only just been found out.

But assuming the quotes are correct, how could adults in paid employment sit in these meeting as go along with the extreme statements being made?

Excellent. Though you'd think that the ONS, of all people, would have understood the importance of clear questions in the first place, and would have realised the problems early on.

God knows though I think this person helped Alison Pritchard https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2022/05/11/alison-pritchard-tra-behind-the-scenes-part-one-geo/

Finally - and long overdue. Presumably their public humiliation after the Census debacle eventually generated some insight into their self inflicted state.

Now for the CQC (Care Quality Commission) that as a regulatory body has no business taking orders from Stonewall.

argued the census’s gender identity question “could be asked of those aged two and above”.

Oh my word. I would laugh at this, but it's too disturbing really.

This is interesting https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/interim-ons-perm-sec-acknowledges-culture-failings-to-mps especially the suggestion that more junior staff were unhappy.

The "acting National Statistician" doesnt seem to have much in the way of qualifications in statistics.

The head of the Office for Statistics Regulation is an economist https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/what-we-do/meet-the-team/ed-humpherson/ and the concerns about economic statistics and social statistics are rather different.

Makes you wonder if there are actually ANY proper statisticians left.

I wonder if what happened is they looked to SW to tell them what kind of question would be meaningful and understood. Assuming that they actually know what people think about this stuff, what is common knowledge, and so on.

Not really considering that what SW would give them would be highly politicised language used within a very siloed community.BecauseSW see pushing that thinking and those words into givernment in various ways as how their activism functions.

I do hope they proposed a free text box for those not fitting into the traditional gender options. You'd get some marvellous graphs - the spikes in dog and cat identity from age 2-4, assorted dinosaurs and possibly the odd dragon from 4-6, then the superhero years ... - and government departments having to plan services for all these future cohorts.

I guess they asked SW what question would make sense to the trans community and they got the answer. But they failed to ask if that question would also make sense to the non trans community and people with English as a second language etc. no one considered that these questions affect everyone, not just the special target group.

We see this in so many places. So bothered about what works for trans people that they forget other people have needs and rights.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/meetingswithtransactualstonewallgenderedintelligenceandgiressince2018

You can download the provided meeting notes should you wish.

I know someone upthread has said this might not have happened recently, but if it did, why oh why has it taken so long? They knew this had been fucked up years ago! They knew why!

Thankfully I was abroad during the last census (and am again), and didn’t have to pander to this shit. And yes the CQC needs to be next.

Stonewall have been really strategic about all this, they fudge the numbers at ONS, then they pressure CQC to allocate disproportionate importance to trans matters in healthcare, meanwhile their ideology is embedded in schools and universities so the next generation of the workforce and academia are all trained in the correct line of argument, including doctors. It’s not a charity it’s evangelism.

Wasn’t it Trotsky who coined the concept of perpetual revolution and worldwide communism? They’ve really tried for that. If only they had also built it fully into a viable political party it might have actually worked.

Thank god for all the voices of dissent in all these organisations.

Makes you wonder if there are actually ANY proper statisticians left.

Well, I'm not one any more but I did send an incredibly contemptuous email to the ONS over this! I hope mine was one of very many.

You've got a point. It's really fucking annoying to keep seeing holes in data and trying to work out what the numbers really say.

I have always thought that Helen Joyce being a proper statistician was one of the reasons she became alert to all this quite quickly. See also Alice Sullivan.

ONS was/is completely captured. Alison Pritchard influence part of it. The previous National Statistician Sir Ian Diamond was the permanent secretary but had come in from outside the Civil Service and didn't have a full handle on politics of it all. I think he was well regarded by staff but upper legions ran rings around him. Longer term there are problems with the talent pipeline for suitable replacements - even with the new split role.

I kind of get that, but did they themslves not look at the proposed questions to see if they made sense? Or, as these are new questions, do a small test on random people to see how it went, before rolling it out to millions of people?

This is the consequence of creating a sacred caste in society who MUST NEVER be questioned. They are allowed to pronounce on anything - no matter how delusional. Women can have a penis, TWAW, 4 year olds can change sex, safeguarding children is right wing bigotry etc etc. Once they push open the door of replacing facts with delusions and fantasy, then undermining the fundamental workings of a democratic society is easy for them.

Hence the ONS, politicians, the NHS etc all spouting incoherent lies and expecting to get away with it because of their reputations.

Absolutely! Plus I would add if you do dare to question them, will react with aggressive ferocity issuing complaints, grievances and threats so people/orgs/companies back down

I think there is merit in consulting with various communities about preferred ways in which to refer to them and using preferred language where possible. ‘Where possible’ is key, because any amendments made through development and piloting mustn’t compromise the reliability and validity of the data being collected.

The issue here seems to have been the ONS’s lack of clarity about the variables they needed to collect data about (e.g. sex and gender identity) or their willingness to compromise the variables explored in order please various lobby groups.

It is the core business of the ONS to define the variables they are measuring and ensuring the data they collect is reliable and valid.

My guess is that they could make no sense of the variable ‘gender identity’ and don’t particularly care so turned to Stonewall et al to define it.

I don’t think it’s always a case of being captured. I think sometimes they pretend to be because they just don’t care enough about the issues arising

Long overdue. There should be firings to go with that decision.
Remember the documents leak back in March 2024 that showed the ONS eg; threatening disciplinary action against women who made perfectly lawful objections to the imposition of males on their loos? Nobody involved in developing those so-called "inclusive" policies of overt misogyny, implicit homophobia, hostility to safeguarding, & contempt for the law should have any place in the Civil Service.

Yes, step 1 is knowing what you're measuring. They failed at that so the rest was unfixable.

And using preferred language may work if you're only asking a specific group but for a whole-population census you have to use language that the largest number of people will understand, not what a small group likes.

On top of all the issues already mentioned I seem to remember that the ONS relocated miles away from its previous base and thus lost a large number of experienced staff who might have been better placed to spot problems with question wording.

They certainly don't care enough about accuracy, their reputation and women if they're happy to eradicate women from data (also see NHS and so many other organisations).
But I disagree that they're not captured as, despite their lack of integrity and critical thinking, I don't believe they're essentially bad people. I think they've allowed the bad people (ie the trans bullies, those who threaten and centre themselves over the needs and rights of others) to threaten and intimidate them. It's those in charge lacking the courage and personal integrity to say no, to ensure the organisation follows the Nolan Principles and to centre the rights of the general community.
Does that make them bad? No - I think it makes them captured, weak and unfit to lead.