Caroline ffiske was a Conservative Councillor for Eight Years. Published on 24 March 2021.

Over the weekend, writing for The Times, Janice Turner summarised the debacle that is the Office of National Statistics capture by gender ideology. Whereas biological sex is binary and immutable, the ONS had planned to allow a form of sex self-identification for last weekend's once-a-decade Census. 

This was only stopped by the campaigning group, FairPlayForWomen, mounting and winning a High Court challenge. The challenge was funded by small voluntary contributions from thousands of people. The outcome of the challenge was that the ONS was instructed by the High Court to require people to provide their biological sex for the Census. The only exception to this is if you hold a Gender Recognition Certificate. 

The Census has now been and gone, and there is a risk that we will all move on from the issue; the ONS has had its knuckles rapped, and will, we might presume, learn lessons.

However, my view is that it would be a serious mistake to 'just move on' - surely questions must be asked and lessons learned.

What the ONS proposed; the way it has been operating; and the role played in this debacle by other arms of the State and of Government, show we have a serious problem. Institutions of state and of government have been captured by gender ideology. This is undermining science and the basis of our society in establishment values. Gender ideology is undermining women's rights to single sex spaces; and their privacy, dignity, and safety. It's placing vulnerable children at risk. But it is also undermining democracy. When were any of us consulted about the adoption of gender ideology across whole arms of the State? When have any of our MPs across all parties seriously spoken about it, dared to discuss it and challenge it, head on? What does that say about the state of our democracy? 

The evidence of ideological capture?

Firstly, the ONS. It's a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme. The ONS pays Stonewall for the privilege of that membership (taxpayer funds). For that privilege, it takes Stonewall's advice, not just on employee-related matters, but on how to make policy. Earlier this year the ONS published its methodology for making decisions about the sex question.The ideological capture is immediately obvious. 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'. Notice that reality - sex is biologically determined - is not even mentioned? What about the 'living / presenting'? Is that: long hair; lipstick? Oh the tragic, sexist, regressive, stereotyping that is inherently involved....

The ONS thinks that 'sex is assigned at birth'. Nobody who thinks this should be in charge of our national statistics. Scroll through the linked document and you will see that our ONS points us to a US-based outfit that pushes gender ideology at young people. Just in case we want more young people to feel uncomfortable in their natural sexed bodies and to contemplate a pathway towards cross-sex hormones, surgery, medicalisation for life, possible sterility and lack of sexual function. 

Here is the ONS exchanging emails with Stonewall in 2020 about the Census sex question. The ONS has a 'quick catch-up' with the policy lead at Stonewall. Who says 'Stonewall accept there will probably be some compromise and that they would likely be fine with a version that keeps to the basic principle that allows trans people to respond with sex that they would choose to respond with'. Why does Stonewall get this privileged access to the policy-making process? 

The ONS jumps when Stonewall say jump. Imagine feeling privileged enough to give the ONS this advice: “I’d strongly recommend that careful thought is applied to how the ONS can practically ensure that, depending on who is present at the roundtable, this is not a hostile environment for trans attendees”. 

Now, to the ideological capture of other arms of the State. The ONS proposed that people should be allowed to provide to the Census, either their biological sex or 'legal documents such as a birth certificate, gender recognition certificate, or passport'. The inclusion of 'passport' would have enabled a form of 'self-ID'. Not many people know that, in this country, that you can change the sex marker on your passport with a doctor's note. A question for the Home Office - when was that ever subject to democratic scrutiny? 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission and NHS England both supported some version of self-identified sex for the Census. For the High Court challenge, the Cabinet Office submitted a witness statement defending the ONS approach and opposing the FairPlayforWomen claim.  They shipped in one of the Government's top QCs, Sir James Eadie, who stated in Court that sex 'is an umbrella term' that includes a range of concepts such as 'lived' and 'self-identified'. Oh dear - is he confusing it with personality? 'He argued there were “5 concepts of sex” and that the definition of sex wasn’t “hermetically sealed”'. Why five, Sir? 

Now the Tory Government. Oh dear, Mr Gove? The Minister for the Cabinet Office submitted a written statement to the Court which said “The Minister opposes the application for interim relief”. He wrote of 'sex': "there is nothing in the Census legislation to confine its meaning to that of sex at birth or sex recorded on a gender recognition certificate. Should permission be granted, the Minister will consider whether it is necessary for him to play an active role in the litigation and, if so, will lodge detailed grounds”. 

Please contemplate for a minute, the implication of Gove's intervention. He says that if a word is not defined within a piece of legislation, there is no limit to how that word can be used? So any piece of legislation could only proceed by first defining every single word used in that legislation? But how would we be able to understand the meanings of the words in the definitions? This is down the rabbit-hole with no way back out. Go down Gove's proposed route and we lose our collective grip on language and thereby on science and reality. 

It's also surely embarrassing that since the High Court decision on the Census, restoring sanity, no Tory MP has commented. Are they not in charge? 

The Census debacle illustrates the sheer scale of the state capture by gender ideology. We need to take this opportunity for a full review of this capture - and the Tory government surely needs to step up and make clear where the Tories stand. What are they afraid of? Science, reality, democracy, the safety of women and vulnerable children, now depend upon courage and leadership.