Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for eight years. Published on 15 February 2021.

A couple of weeks ago there was good news for those who care about the grounding of our society in reality. The Times reported that in the forthcoming 2021 Census, the question which asks people for their sex would require people to answer with their sex. Like that should be a surprise. The Office of National Statistics would allow a small exception for the tiny number of people who have gone through the legal process of obtaining a 'gender recognition certificate' - about 5000 people in the UK. 

This moderate good sense was a surprise coming from the ONS because it is so deeply mired in gender ideology.  And, indeed, it turned out to be too good to be true. The ONS has now officially confirmed that the 2021 Census will allow a form of sex 'self ID' (more details below) and it has produced a document explaining this decision. My conclusion upon reading this document is that the senior team at the ONS is not fit for purpose and needs to go. They are participating in the entrenchment across our society of an ideology that undermines science and truth; free speech and democracy. An ideology that threatens women's language, safety, and rights; and endangers vulnerable children. If the leadership of the ONS won't stand up for accurate statistics, data integrity, and science, they need to be replaced by people who will.

Let's explore the woeful situation. The final decision, on the sex question, for the 2021 Census, is that people will be allowed to reference either their biological sex or 'legal documents such as a birth certificate, gender recognition certificate, or passport'. Let's look at how this decision was reached and what it says about the state of the ONS and our wider democracy.

In the ONS 'methodology' document explaining the decision, the drift into ideology is apparent from the start. The focus is not on science but on avoiding offence. There are some definitions, including this for the 'trans' population: 'where the gender they identify with is different to their sex registered at birth'. However 'ONS is aware that not all members of these populations identify with this terminology'. It's all there, already, in that last sentence: the fear of causing offence, the 'sort-of' apology over terminology, the prioritising of 'identity'.

But it gets worse. Across the increasingly irrational debate about sex and gender, a core of sanity has been clung to: that of a difference between sex and 'gender'. If you want to promote gender ideology, but recognise that you can't get around the fact that sex is binary and immutable, you state a preference 'gender': a 'true self' on the inside. Follow the debate; you'll see the distinction everywhere. The ONS has abandoned the distinction. The ONS says 'Sex can be defined in different ways'. 'These are sex as: registered at birth, recorded on birth certificate, recorded on legal/official documents, living / presenting, and self-identified'. Staggering. Gender ideologues do not go this far... 

Women have become 'traditional women'. The ONS conducted 'in-depth interviews with trans people, traditional women’s groups and the general population...' The ONS normalises the term 'cisgender' - like we want people to explore body disassociation. In America you can buy cross-sex hormones online; via a bottle, your dreams will come true. 

How did the ONS finally decide which of the sex options to run with? Science and truth did not even get a look in... 'We evaluate different concepts of sex in relation to impact on overall census response, sex question response, and individuals right to privacy'. It seems that the goal of the Census has become to get more people to fill in the Census, while not offending them.

In a nutshell, the ONS decided to abandon science, promote ideology, mainstream body disassociation, because it thought more people would fill in the Census. Final conclusion: 'The least impact is anticipated if sex as living / presenting is collected. However, the adjacent concept of sex recorded on legal/official documents is also anticipated to have low impact.' 

Now, let's go back to the actual guidance: the ONS has decided that you may answer the sex question by providing the sex used on your legal documents, such as 'your passport'. How many people in this country know that you can change the sex marker on your passport without requiring a gender recognition certificate? You just provide 'a new birth or adoption certificate showing your acquired gender' or 'a letter from your doctor or medical consultant confirming your change of gender is likely to be permanent'.  What would a doctor base such a letter on? More importantly, when did the Home Office make this change? Who decided that we should be allowed to state something on our passports which isn't true? When was the public consultation? Democracy is being undermined.

Notice the ratchet effect? Someone persuaded the Home Office to allow this. Passports are just travel documents after all, flashed at the airport. So, come on ONS, if the Home Office allows self-ID, get with the beat! James Kirkup wrote in The Spectator about a document that reveals the 'remarkable tactics of the trans lobbyists'.   'One of the most mystifying aspects is the speed and success of a small number of small organisations in achieving major influence over public bodies, politicians and officials. How has a certain idea taken hold in so many places so swiftly?' The ratchet effect is surely part of the process. Kirkup quotes another recommended tactic: 'Avoid excessive press coverage and exposure.' Exposure? That means public scrutiny, democracy. Shoved aside. 

In fact, even while I have been writing this article, it has been pointed out that someone has already pushed the ONS decision aside. Is the senior team at the ONS even aware that someone has done this? They have produced and published a brochure that has by-passed the corporate decision and put full self-identification back on the table.   Has someone gone rogue? This is not an organisation which seems in control.

None of this is acceptable. Scientists and statisticians have been doing everything in their power, practically begging the Office of National Statistics to see sense.  But to no avail. Ideology closes minds and shuts down debate. 

Our individual involvement in our democracy has never mattered more. We need to tell our government to act. The senior leadership team at the Office of National Statistics seems to be hopelessly out of their depth; not in control of their own institution. They must be held to account - get a grip of your organisation and defend science, truth, data integrity - or go.