Dear Chris Bryant
Professor Alice Sullivan in her review of data on sex and gender found that
“the meaning of sex is no longer stable in administrative or major survey data (and) this instability is evident across key policy areas including health and … has led to a widespread loss of data on sex. In some cases, the loss of data on sex poses risks to individuals. This is particularly apparent within health and social care. These risks are especially high in the case of minors.”
She made it clear that it was impossible for a single data field to accurately record both sex and non-biological identities, and will therefore inevitably result in inaccurate data.
Approximately 100,000 people have the incorrect sex recorded by at least one public authority.
The Data Bill that you are steering through parliament presents a unique opportunity to bring stability to statistical data on sex, and to establish, for the first time, some clear and useful data on people who are transgender, by blocking the information on sex from coming through the government information gateway, and ensuring it comes from the birth register, which is known to be accurate, and adding a second field to record acquired gender,
Yet this opportunity is being squandered by the Labour administration’s refusal to amend the bill as it currently stands. As lesbian and gay people, we think we can be forgiven for believing the refusal to accept this most logical option for ensuring the accuracy of data to be a cynical attempt to introduce self-ID into the law through the back door, which is a direct attack on the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court has been clear that accurate data on sex is the only way to comply with the Equality Act. The judgement confirmed not only that the word “sex” referred to biological sex but that to define it in the way the Scottish Government wanted to do would render the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation meaningless.
Whipping MPs to vote amendment 21 down means that many MPs simply did not understand the implications of what they were voting for. This is abundantly clear from the comments made by Labour Members in the House.
Can we be forgiven for suspecting your next step might be a proposal to amend the EA to bring it in line with the Data Bill, if passed? Or that the government’s intention is to destroy the protections afforded to women, lesbians, and gay men, under the Equality Act? Were this
to happen, there would be another legal challenge on the scale of the recent For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers at the very least: with it more uncertainty and cost to the public purse. Self-ID is not popular amongst the British public. People will not put up with it.
Data about individuals must be immutable to be reliable. Data such as that recorded at birth, specifically date, time, and sex, fulfill this. “Gender identity” on the other hand, like religion, marital status and so on, is fluid. They may be certificated, but also only true at a given point in time, or subject to “proof”. Gender reassignment can be certificated but does not have to be for the purposes of the Equality Act, and even people with GRCs do not always live their whole lives displaying the identity of their chosen sex. It is not a requirement that a person “passes” as the opposite sex in order to self-identify as the opposite sex. Neither is it the case that all people presenting as the opposite sex wish to be identified as natally of that sex (not all want to “pass”): some transgender people are proud to be natally one sex while presenting as the opposite. As for data on gender identity versus sex being private, this can never be assured as documents will inevitably exist carrying data prior to transition showing a transgender person’s natal sex.
Personal data is protected under GDPR; disclosing it without consent or justifiable cause, an offence. The “acquired gender” of transgender people should be safe under this protection.
You say the government will uphold the Supreme Court ruling but your bill as it stands will simply bring the government into conflict with the Supreme Court. Nothing good can come of this.
We would welcome a meeting with you either in parliament or in your consistency to discuss the issues we are so concerned about, further.
Yours sincerely
