The Science Secretary, Michelle Donelan, is initiating a review on the collection of gender data by public bodies, aiming to address the shift towards self-identified gender over biological sex. The Telegraph has the story.
Speaking at the Conservative Party Conference, Michelle Donelan will sound the alarm at what she calls the “denial of biology and the steady creep of political correctness”.
Ms. Donelan has been moved to act by examples such as the NHS sometimes using a person’s stated gender rather than their biological sex in data records.
The review will last six months and be headed up by Prof. Alice Sullivan, the Head of Research at UCL’s Social Research Institute.
It will analyse the collection of research and statistics by all public bodies on sex and gender, with specific recommendations to be made at the end.
Ms. Donelan will say in her speech on Tuesday: “To those who think they have the right to impose this utter nonsense on science, let this message go out from this conference hall today… We are safeguarding scientific research from the denial of biology and the steady creep of political correctness.”
She will also say: “We are making a stand before it suffocates British identity and values entirely… That is why we are depoliticising science, because science is the most extraordinary force for good – from curing disease to growing our food – [and] we must keep it that way.”
The intervention comes as the Conservative Party hardens its position on the importance of biological sex being recognised amid the debate about transgender rights.
The issue has played an increasingly prominent role in British political discourse, with all parties facing pressure to make clear how they would strike the right balance.
Rishi Sunak’s Government has long been promising to publish guidance for schools on how they should act when pupils want to self-identify as a different gender from the one assigned at birth.
But ministers have had to water down the proposals after being warned that a change to the Equality Act would be needed to implement them.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Whilst we recognise that certain negative consequences can in very rare cases – potentially – arise from interacting with a biological male as a female, or visa versa, we see the rights of the individual to identify even as cauliflowers – should they so choose – as sacrosanct. The review finds no actions necessary.”
You just wait.
You are right. But my question is, why have yet another enquiry, investigation, whatsoever, when we normal people know the differences between sex and self-ID gibberish!!! 😂
When you ask a question of a person whose first language isn’t English, it’s unlikely you’ll get a cogent reply, much less one that forms the basis of a ‘gender identification study’.
The question to be asked should be: “do you agree there are two biological sexes, male and female?” It’d save a lot of bother!
Entirely useless question. As TS Eliot reportedly once put it: Reality is what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it. People can disagree with water being a fluid as much as they want. But they’re never going to walk on it.
And thank you thank you thank you for using the correct term – SEX – for once! How many times do we hear people (on our side of the debate) confidently stating “There are only two genders!” No! You’re confusing people and prolonging the ‘debate’! There are as many genders as are needed by people who are having difficulty with reality; but there are only two SEXES! Katie Hopkins, Andrew Lawrence etc etc (wonderful people all): please understand the difference!
And I thank you too!!! Even GB News presenters sometimes mix it up. Only recently some would describe the trans confused ones as transsexuals. Not transgenders. When we stick to our language the bullies won’t win.
“That is why we are de-politicising science”??? Oh really? And what exactly is “Climate Change” and the policies put in place to fix this non existent problem all based on the output from speculative models full of assumptions that do not match what is happening in the REAL WORLD? You don’t get science that is much more politicised than climate science where 99% of it is all funded by government. ——Imagine if it was all funded by the fossil fuel industry and they came to the conclusion that climate change was not much of a problem. There would be spitting fury. It would be claimed that the evil fossil fuel companies had an agenda. But what makes people think government don’t have an agenda? —–Ofcourse they do. It is called “Sustainable Development”, and is about creating a world run by technocrats elected by no one who will control all of the worlds wealth and resources.
Brilliant.
Why thankyou Huxley. ———It’s just a pity even a quarter of the general public would not consider my comment OK if not “brilliant”, but they won’t get the chance because the science is indeed highly politicised and most of them only hear about this issue on their 6 o’clock News read out by activist TV channels
Talk is cheap, they have a working majority so no excuse for not doing this stuff already.
It’s just a dog-whistle announcement to energise the Tories’ core membership during the Party Conference, and it’ll be quietly forgotten by the start of next week. In the absence of any public money to give away, it’s all they’ve got…
“in the absence of any public money to give away, it’s all they’ve got…”
There has been no public money since 2008. It’s all printed, and owed by you and I the taxpayer.
I would not, if you think Labour would behave nay differently, seek help ;->
Most MPs, peers, have already been identified as turnips and should so declare.
That’s doing them by far too much honour. Beetroots is much more appropriate.
I enjoy beetroots.
They’re ok when sliced and pickled. Just as politicians.
Completely pickled is probably the only way to explain their utter hopelessness.
I like turnips in stews – RW’s comment applies.
As Linehan wrote yesterday: Gender is not assigned at birth but sex is observed and recorded, usually even before birth. It’s a fact and not a someone’s opinion.
It is very occasionally difficult to observe and decide which sex a baby is. Such cases are very upsetting for all concerned.
Also very rare, and (in my experience) seldom leading to the individual being confused over their identity.
So what? Occasionally, babies will be born dead. But giving birth is nevertheless how mammals reproduce and not how their bodies get rid of spurious tissue.
They do a lot of alarm sounding and not much doing.
Having read the newspaper report in full I note that she is also quoted as saying “Any credible scientist will tell you that gender and sex are two different things …”.
I double-checked the definition of ‘gender’ and, apart from the linguistic definitions I found: “Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.”
So the words Gender and Sex are synonymous, as I have always thought.
If a scientist tries to tell me that gender and sex are two different things I will not find that scientist credible at all.
Why do they need a review lasting six months FFS? In the immortal words of Alf Garnett when asked his specialist subject on Mastermind – “The bleeding obvious”
If a change to the Equality Act is required, make the change, or scrap it altogether.