Menu
Log in


Reference re: the importance of asking biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation

  • 8 Dec 2024 4:25 PM
    Reply # 13438761 on 13438758
    Duncan Lowes wrote:

    I apologise for seeming so passionate about something but I genuinely am not a big fan of the traditional head of household knowing everything about everyone so ideally keep it simple.

    That's fair, but maybe the answer to that is to provide a mechanism for those who want to to enter their own census data.



  • 8 Dec 2024 2:57 PM
    Reply # 13438758 on 13438694
    Peter Summers wrote:

    And I don't see how such an old-fashioned instrument can have so called modernity grafted onto it 

    Why not?


    I still think my point is being missed about the nature of the Census instrument. Historically and I believe ongoing

    And my concerns about doing something politically (and good intentions) for likely very little data value will remain irrelevant

    People will deal with it I am sure, as they always do

    I apologise for seeming so passionate about something but I genuinely am not a big fan of the traditional head of household knowing everything about everyone so ideally keep it simple. I am sure nobody needs to hear more from me :)

    Happy Christmas




    Last modified: 8 Dec 2024 3:08 PM | Duncan Lowes
  • 8 Dec 2024 7:14 AM
    Reply # 13438694 on 13438626
    Duncan Lowes wrote:

    And I need to reassert nobody has ever been excluded or uncounted on sexuality. I will accept possibly sex and gender but not sexuality. 

    The [2021] census captures sex (albeit a little confused with gender, see Sex (SEXP) | Australian Bureau of Statistics), also disability, ATSI status, cultural diversity, and disability, all of which are potentially useful for equity studies. 

    See, for example, All-cause and cause-specific mortality inequalities between people with and without disability: a nationwide data linkage study in Australia - The Lancet Public Health.  :-)

    It doesn't capture gender or sexuality, so you can't do studies like the above for those.

    And I don't see how such an old-fashioned instrument can have so called modernity grafted onto it 

    Why not?


    Last modified: 8 Dec 2024 4:21 PM | Peter Summers
  • 7 Dec 2024 11:58 PM
    Reply # 13438626 on 13409651

    Hi Beth

    Appreciate the comments. Will try to respond later

    Was feeling anxious about my rather unstructured comments earlier and some points or concerns were not well made or maybe even understood 

    Will get back to you when I can respond well

    Thanks for arguing 

    Please note public forums are dangerous places for some of us to comment. Considerable personal risk but also risk of misunderstanding and misrepresentation in such seemingly divisive issues 

    I have serious concerns about Federal agencies causing trouble in people's homes already with outdated models so maybe updating the Census one day would be good

    I honestly think some well meaning things can make matters worse

    And I need to reassert nobody has ever been excluded or uncounted on sexuality. I will accept possibly sex and gender but not sexualiity. To say they have as an assumption and argument is incorrect 

    And I don't see how such an old-fashioned instrument can have so called modernity grafted onto it 

    And knowing how people have to work round oppressive instruments through history I wonder what MF even meant and who cares. Meddling more could make it worse 

    D




    Last modified: 8 Dec 2024 1:05 AM | Duncan Lowes
  • 7 Dec 2024 12:54 AM
    Reply # 13438306 on 13409651

    Census data guides critical resource allocation and policy decisions.

    The historical absence of these questions has led to undercounting and underserving LGBTQI+ populations. While implementation requires careful attention to privacy and methodology, excluding these demographics perpetuates their invisibility in policy decisions.

    Including questions on LGBTQI status will provide baseline data to measure progress on equality initiatives, enabling researchers to document systematic disparities in outcomes and allowing communities to demonstrate need for targeted programs/funding.

    Continued systemic demographic exclusion perpetuates inequities by leaving key population data uncollected.

    Rather than undermining the integrity of the census, adding these questions modernises it to better fulfill its core purpose: accurately representing the whole population to inform governance.


    Edit: typos

    Last modified: 7 Dec 2024 12:57 AM | Beth Firipis
  • 6 Dec 2024 10:43 AM
    Reply # 13438172 on 13409651

    Hi

    I have been reticent about commenting here very often. Always hopeful of more discussion on important matters of data and analysis

    Note I hope Chris found his reference. Copy and paste into Google will find it

    I also don't feel I have the authority to comment despite my life professional experience and retired membership of the Society

    I hope I can speak for all/most Data Scientists, Statisticians, Data people, researchers, scientists etc. that we are supposed to be the people who care about things being done right for the right reasons

    I have very strong feelings about the matter with regard to the very specific instrument called the Census

    Relates to the nature of the Census - a bit old and quaint but still much loved with the head of a householld seemingly knowing and having the right to speak for everyone else on matters such as gender, preference, sexuality etc - and of course where we make our money and more recently how much

    Also while LGBTQIA+ and anything else added later the construct may have some political meaning - although I doubt everyone under all those different constructs are on the same page of anything, but from a basic data defintion I would expect data people to argue on that basis. 

    EDIT Sorry for editing but I saw a few typos and forgot a seemingly obvious point that I rarely hear discussed - although maybe hinted at - if the Census is such an important instrument why meddle with it and use it for things that have never been asked in history - and could undermine the whole thing. None of us were excluded or all of us were on matters never asked - M,F and other or whatever people feel like saying. It has implications for the whole structure of the thing - maybe it needs a major revamp - treating everyone as individuals and the ability to answer questions privately on all matters

    As something of an amateur genealogist I am sure everyone were happiy in the relationships and households they all told the census collector

    There are serious limits in a compulsory and important insutrument on how far government or anyone for that matter should be in every part of our lives

    There is my rant

    Happy New Year and Christmas or whatever Celebration you enjoy at this time of year

    PS I am not sure the end of many years are worth celebrating. Good to see the back of them and be disappointed again next year

    Last modified: 6 Dec 2024 5:09 PM | Duncan Lowes
  • 22 Nov 2024 9:38 AM
    Reply # 13433689 on 13432390
    Chris Lloyd wrote:

    Surely a competent researcher on a particular issue will ask questions about variables that are potentially predictive of the outome of interest.

    ...

    Serious researchers should not automatically ask questions just because (a) the respondant might like to be asked or (b) the funders or readers of the report want you to ask it.

    Is anyone suggesting that they should?

    The question of what to collect is trickier for data sets that will be used in many different ways, such as the census, when you want to collect anything for which the value of the data justifies the cost of collecting it.  

    Last modified: 22 Nov 2024 5:14 PM | Peter Summers
  • 19 Nov 2024 4:59 PM
    Reply # 13432390 on 13409651

    Surely a competent researcher on a particular issue will ask questions about variables that are potentially predictive of the outome of interest.

    For instance, if you are studying melanoma rates there would be no reason to ask about transgender status or political beliefs. If you were studying donations to political parties, then such questions would be germane.

    Serious researchers should not automatically ask questions just because (a) the respondant might like to be asked or (b) the funders or readers of the report want you to ask it.

    Last modified: 19 Nov 2024 5:00 PM | Chris Lloyd
  • 23 Sep 2024 2:21 PM
    Message # 13409651

    Afternoon all,

    I give 2 workshops to researchers and HDR students on survey design and have had a section on asking biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation for a while now.

    It’s such a fast moving area I take notes and every now and then update it. The posts and discussion we had on this a while ago were very useful, thanks to all involved :) I’ve found some time to update it and I’m pretty sure I saw the below during that and was wondering where it came from? As I’d like to reference it.

    --------------------------------------

    Transgender people and other gender and sex minorities have always been part of society, even if these identities have not been encoded in previous data collection efforts. It is a scientific reality that much research is focused on response variables that can be moderated by gender identity, sex characteristics, or both. It is time to end the erasure of GSM in our standard data collection procedures both for the sake of inclusivity and for the sake of decreasing measurement error and bias.


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software