Sex and gender ID conflation ‘isn’t helpful’ for data collection, Streeting says
Health Secretary Wes Streeting told the Commons that the ‘conflation of sex and gender identity isn’t helpful’ for data analysis.
Ministers are studying a review of sex and gender data “with a view to making sure that we’re meeting the needs of everyone, including the trans community”, the Health Secretary has said.
Wes Streeting told the Commons that the “conflation of sex and gender identity isn’t helpful both in terms of data analysis but also recognising health inequalities”.
His comments on Tuesday referred to an independent review led by Alice Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London (UCL).
Professor Sullivan recommended that the Government collects data on sex at birth “by default”, with sex as a biological category “constant across time and across jurisdictions, whereas the concept of ‘legal sex’ subject to a gender recognition certificate may be subject to change in the future”.
She also warned health authorities against issuing new NHS numbers and changed gender markers to trans or gender diverse people, “as this means that data on sex is lost, thereby putting individuals at risk regarding clinical care, screening, and safeguarding, as well as making vital research following up individuals who have been through a gender transition across the life course impossible”.
In the Commons, Conservative shadow health minister Dr Caroline Johnson told MPs: “The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) for which the Secretary of State is responsible publishes health statistics.
“This includes data on sexually transmitted infections (STIs) that are published by sexual orientation and sex.
“But a footnote states that women are defined in the dataset as women and transwomen, which does undermine somewhat the value of the data.
“So what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that data is not just collected properly but is published and presented in a way that is most clinically useful?”
Several UKHSA tables published online note that data on women “includes cisgender and transgender women”, while data on men “includes cisgender and transgender men”.
Mr Streeting said Dr Johnson had raised a “really good example of how conflation of sex and gender identity isn’t helpful both in terms of data analysis but also recognising health inequalities and making sure that we are understanding variances between people based on their different backgrounds, different characteristics, and making sure we provide targeted, personalised and effective healthcare that deals with healthcare inequalities”.
He said the Government was studying Professor Sullivan’s recommendations “carefully, with a view to making sure that we’re meeting the needs of everyone, including the trans community, who I understand – not least because of the way the debate’s been conducted in recent years – are anxious about the implications of the report”.
The review, published this month, reads: “Collecting data on sex does not reduce people to biological categories, neither does it imply that people should conform with the stereotypes associated with those categories, nor does it deny the existence or experience of people with diverse gender identities.
“Indeed, people with diverse gender identities are being let down by data collection practices which conflate sex and gender identity, making it impossible to track the outcomes of distinct groups.”
