• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Fair Play For Women

Fair Play For Women

  • Prison
  • Sport
  • GRA
  • Language
  • Changing rooms
  • Resources ▼
    • Take action! Here’s how
    • Key facts
    • UK law
    • Science
    • Sex vs gender
    • Consultation submissions
    • Materials
  • About Us ▼
    • Review of 2022
    • Our aim
    • Our beliefs
    • Our spokeswoman
    • Our history and achievements
    • Our supporters
    • News
      • Newspapers
      • TV Interviews
      • Radio interviews
    • Contact
    • Donate
You are here: Home / Policy guidance / Statistics regulator fires a shot across the bow on sex and gender

Statistics regulator fires a shot across the bow on sex and gender

26th February 2021 by FPFW

On 25th February 2021 the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) published some draft guidance on “Collecting and reporting data about sex in official statistics”.  As regulators, it is their role to support public confidence in statistics and making sure that statistics serve the public good. Statistics are expected to meet standards of trustworthiness, quality, and value.

It’s important what they think. They decide which statistics get designated with the quality assurance mark of “National Statistics”. They can also remove or suspending National Statistics designation. It is OSR who will decide whether the Census 2021 achieves the status of “National Statistics”. They say on their website:

“The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) is carrying out an assessment of the UK Censuses to allow us to recommend whether the Census outputs should be designated as National Statistics when they are first released. National Statistics designation means the data and statistics are reliable and provide valuable insights; that they meet the standards of trustworthiness, quality and value outlined in the Code of Practice for Statistics”

Their intervention is also notable and timely, coming 13 days after the ONS published its controversial Guidance on how to answer “What is your sex” in the Census 2021 and just 6 days after Fair Play For Women initiated legal action against the ONS requesting it is withdrawn.

It also comes after persistent complaints from ourselves and others about the way information on sex is being collected and reported. Our most recent letter, sent on 4th February, reported the publication of National Statistics by the Home Office using misleading crime figures provided to them by the police. We specifically reported the document called “police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2020“. There is no way a data user would be expected to know or check whether the figures reported under ‘female’ also includes some males.

On 17th February we were very encouraged to receive this letter from OSR stating

“We agree that, from the information currently provided in the crime statistics bulletins, user guides or technical reports, users could not be expected to know (or determine) whether or not the figures for a given sex are likely to include transgender individuals. We think it would be helpful if this aspect of the statistics was highlighted prominently alongside the statistics to aid user interpretation. We will raise these issues with Home Office and Ministry of Justice statisticians”.

 

It’s OSR’s job to keep an eye on how the ONS have been setting up the Census for 2021. They’ve been alerted by data experts that the ONS was not taking their concerns seriously over sex question guidance. Back in September 2020 the OSR told the ONS to do better.

The questions to be asked in the Census in 2021 have been finalised. However, we are aware that some stakeholders have outstanding concerns with the guidance on the Census sex question. ONS has continued to engage with users and stakeholders about this and we recognise the efforts being made to provide answers or explanations on areas of concern. ONS should seek to address outstanding concerns raised by users within its further question testing and research on the guidance on the sex question. ONS should share the outcomes of this research in a transparent and open way.

Despite this, based on the new guidance published by the OSR today, the ONS and its Census appears to be failing on numerous counts. So do many other public bodies.

Here’s what the OSR draft guidance says:

As a producer, if you are currently collecting and reporting data on sex or are considering making changes to how you do so, it is important that you do so with clarity, being transparent about the reasons for your judgements and decision making throughout. You should explain to users what and how data are being collected and support the appropriate use of the statistics.

They go on to summarise their expectations of producers when collecting and reporting data about sex, under each pillar of the Code.

Trustworthiness

Producers need to understand what data they can legally collect about an individual’s sex and comply with relevant legislation, as well as considering any relevant nationally- and internationally-endorsed guidelines.

ONS have asserted that the asking people for their “sex registered at birth” in Census breaches a transgender person’s right to privacy. Woman’s Place commissioned a formal legal opinion from Aidan O’Neill Q confirming this is not the case.

Quality

  • Producers should be clear about definitions or terminology they use, and these should be harmonised to be consistent and coherent with related statistics and data where possible. The terms ‘sex’ and ’gender’ should not be used interchangeably in official statistics.

Hallelujah! Something we have been shouting about for years! At last we are seeing this being taken seriously by regulators. (IPSO please take note!) This is hugely significant.

  • Producers cannot always design or change administrative systems which enable public services to be delivered. But they should seek to understand the systems, including any risks and biases that may arise from the way the systems collect and categorise data. Uncertainty in the source data should be identified and the extent of any impact on or limitations of the statistics should be clearly reported. For data about sex this may be particularly relevant when considering data at smaller sub-group levels.

We and other stakeholders have made it very clear to the ONS that a small misclassification of males as female can have a large impact on some data sets. For example, if even if 0.5% of the 13,000 male sex offenders in prison were to be misclassified as female it would almost double the extremely small number of female sex offenders in prison.

  • Producers must have a good understanding of, and clearly explain, the sources of data about sex they are using and how these are collected. This applies to survey and administrative data sources; both the question(s) used, and the way that these are completed can influence the exact nature of data collected and whether this is a mixture of sex registered at birth, self-identified sex, lived gender and others.

The police currently record reported crimes based on gender identity and not birth sex. They do not make this clear to users of the data by labelling figures simply “male” and “female”. This has led to the inevitable misunderstanding of what the data means and false claims asserted by the BBC and others. For example, a recent BBC documentary claims a rise in women sexually abusing children from the which the Daily Mail follows with the headline “Female paedophiles doubles”. At no point is it made clear that a significant number of these ‘females’ are likely to have been born male.

The OSR even give a worked example in their guidance using criminal justice statistics as important statistics which help the public understand the nature of incarceration in their country. They say OSR would expect producers of the statistics to:

Understand the nature of the data they are currently using to produce their statistics

Clearly state how data about sex are gathered

Clearly explain any terminology in the statistics

Clearly explain any limitations of the data and the impact these have on the statistics and their use.

Value

  • Decisions about whether to continue, discontinue or adapt statistics about sex should be made in discussion with users and other stakeholders. If a change is made to data collection, or if information about a data collection practice emerges which makes it clear that the nature of the data may have been previously misunderstood, a clear explanation of the change should be published, with evidence of the rationale and, wherever possible, the analysis that informed the change.
  • Collection and reporting of data about sex is a sensitive and potentially divisive topic and there may be times when producers are unable to meet the requests of everyone who has an interest in their statistics. In these cases, it is more important than ever to be transparent and open about the decision-making process and the evidence used to inform the choices that have been made, particularly in relation to any areas of contention.

It has been made very clear to the ONS that experts are concerned about the loss of data on birth sex in Census. Professor Alice Sullivan organised a letter from 80 social scientists, including 50 professors, in late 2019. The resulting engagement process has been lack-lustre and dismissive as described in this blistering public attack by data experts published in a letter to the Times.

The public servants leading this process have failed to engage in a serious and timely way with those outside government who have expertise on the collection and use of population data in the social sciences. No robust evidence or argument has been provided to support such a fundamental change. We are on the brink of losing robust, high quality data on sex in the UK. Once gone, we may never get it back.

The ONS had 10 years to get this right for the Census 2021. But they didn’t start any real engagement over the sex question Guidance until June 2020, and that was only after pressure from stakeholders to do so. They conducted last minute research in secret after telling us they weren’t doing it. Neither have they been transparent or open about the studies findings, publishing only the bare bones for peer review.  And what has been shared suggests poor quality. All this culminating in the development of guidance published on 12th February 2021 which we now consider to be unlawful.

As policy analysts MBM wrote yesterday, their decision to publish a finalised version of the guidance for the sex question little more than five weeks before census day might have been designed to thwart the ability of campaigners to halt the process. They under-estimated our resolve and the strength of public feeling. They are now embroiled in a legal challenge to force them to withdraw their unlawful guidance made possible by a public crowd funder that has raised £60,000 in a week.  Public trust that our national statistics are free from interference by ideological pressure groups risks being severely dented by adverse newspaper headlines, recent coverage of the legal challenge on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, and even mention of the furore by several peers in the House of Lords this week.

Lord Hunt of Kings heath “The ONS has caved into bullying — pathetic. The head of the ONS was interviewed, I think on the “Today” programme, and said that it was not going down the path it has now chosen. However, it has caved in, as many public bodies do, because they come under aggressive attack on social media and are accused of transphobia. The Government remain absolutely silent.”

Baroness Noakes “Some organisations, deliberately or carelessly conflate sex and gender. The ONS for example has dug itself into this hole for the upcoming census. With the likely result that inaccurate statistical data will be coming from that about women.”

Lord Triesman “I note that the basis on which the ONS has decided to collect data on biological sex, or rather not collect data on biological sex in the census, now means that there are a number of leading quantitative social scientists who believe that we will have both inadequate data and an inadequate track back through data historically and we have been given almost no time to comment on the wording of the census and yet the wording of the census which guides so much social policy, and so much of our understanding of our country, and indeed should guide a great deal of our debates in this house. That will now be poorly defined and I suspect will be poorly used in policy making and I hope the minister will be able to comment on how we might rectify that problem.”

There will be an increasingly heavy price to pay for institutional policy capture. It’s a shame the OSR intervention hadn’t come sooner and with more force. If it had, perhaps the reputation of the National Statistician and his £1 billion Census could have been spared this embarrassment.

 

 

Filed Under: Data, Language, Policy guidance

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Biological sex
  • Children
  • Gender Identity
  • Male violence
  • Scottish GRA reforms
  • Silencing women
  • Policy guidance

Our materials

  • Our factsheets
  • Our short films and animations
  • Our memes
  • Our research

Our latest articles

  • Testosterone suppression in sport: time to drop the Roberts study
  • World Athletics new transgender policy fails women
  • Statement on the UK government move to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill
  • Rowing policies make no sense
  • A progress report on the fight to restore fairness in female sport

Archives

Footer

Prisons, crime and protecting women

  • The facts about transgender prisoners
  • Prisons timeline – how did we get here?
  • Karen White & prison review
  • Sex attacks in female prisons
  • Refuge shelters deeply worried
  • How do women in prison feel about sharing with transgender prisoners?
  • Can you believe what you read about sexual and violent crimes?
  • The judicial review of prisons policy
  • Factsheets

Sport and the human body

  • A progress report on the fight to restore fairness in female sport
  • Biological sex differences
  • Chromosomes, sex and gender
  • The science and statistics behind the transgender debate
  • Guidelines for single-sex sport policy
  • Testosterone suppression in “elite athletes” – what do we know?
  • Safeguarding in sport still matters
  • Male inclusion leads to female exclusion
  • What you can do

Making policy and the law

  • Scottish government is forcing sex self-ID on whole of UK.
  • The Equality Act 2010 and women’s rights
  • GRA reform
  • Advice and guidance for policy makers
  • Changing room policy advice
  • What can I do now?
  • Take Action: Say NO to letting Sex Self-ID in through the back door.
  • Public opinion on the tension between women’s rights and trans demands

© 2023 · Fair Play For Women

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt out if you wish. Read More

Accept Decline Cookie Settings
I consent to the use of following cookies:
Cookie Declaration About Cookies
Necessary (2) Marketing (1) Analytics (4) Preferences (0) Unclassified (4)
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
wpl_user_preference fairplayforwomen.com WP GDPR Cookie Consent Preferences 1 year HTTP
YSC youtube.com YouTube session cookie. 52 years HTTP
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE youtube.com YouTube cookie. 6 months HTTP
Analytics cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
_ga fairplayforwomen.com Google Universal Analytics long-time unique user tracking identifier. 2 years HTTP
_gid fairplayforwomen.com Google Universal Analytics short-time unique user tracking identifier. 1 days HTTP
vuid vimeo.com Vimeo tracking cookie 2 years HTTP
IDE doubleclick.net Google advertising cookie used for user tracking and ad targeting purposes. 2 years HTTP
Preference cookies enable a website to remember information that changes the way the website behaves or looks, like your preferred language or the region that you are in.
We do not use cookies of this type.
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
_gat_UA-109881507-1 fairplayforwomen.com --- Session ---
GASessionCookie fairplayforwomen.com --- Session ---
rtc linkedin.com --- Session ---
_wpfuuid fairplayforwomen.com --- 11 years ---
Cookies are small text files that can be used by websites to make a user's experience more efficient. The law states that we can store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies we need your permission. This site uses different types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.
Cookie Settings