Sex and Statistics

Ideological capture in New Zealand. A guest post by Fern Hickson

Statistics can throw up surprising facts, but perhaps the most startling is the recent assertion by Statistics NZ that “a person’s sex can change over the course of their lifetime”. The recently released Statistical standard for gender, sex and variations of sex characteristics makes this announcement as if it is verified fact: 

Sex is based on a person’s sex characteristics, such as their chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. While typically based upon the sex characteristics observed and recorded at birth or infancy, a person’s sex can change over the course of their lifetime and may differ from their sex recorded at birth. (emphasis added)

This absurd concept has led Stats NZ to alter how it collects foundational information about individuals. The new standard – that will be mandated for the next census as well as every other form of data collection by any NZ organisation – has made gender identity the default question, with sex only asked as a secondary question, if at all.

Sex is only to be collected and output as part of the two-step process. That is, data on sex is to be collected and output in combination with gender and not to be collected or output in isolation.

The most fundamental data about our community – data that is used for “developing health, social, education, and employment policies”– will now be hopelessly muddled because self-declared gender identity will have priority over the biological sex category.

In justification for focussing on gender instead of sex, Stats NZ claims that the very concept of female or male bodies is a “Eurocentric model and construct”.  

It is true that in every culture there have always been gender non-conforming feminine men and masculine women and that some cultures have been better than others at accepting them. But no culture before our recent ‘progressive’ one has ever been confused about the immutable role of sex. People who believe or claim they are the opposite gender always retain their biological sex and it is not helpful to them, or society, to pretend otherwise. When they want to reproduce, every adult knows what sex they are - the one with the eggs or the one with the sperm.  

Stats NZ is motivated by a desire to collect data in an ‘inclusive’ way, meaning that everyone has a box they can tick that corresponds to how they feel about themselves. Inclusion would be achieved more accurately, however, by having a biological sex question followed by a gender identity question, and having such a question would no doubt be a positive change, providing more information and understanding of our community.  

By asking the question the other way around, Stats NZ is requiring respondents to agree with the quasi-religious idea that everyone has a gender identity. The definition given in the standard that “Gender identity refers to a person’s internal and individual experience of gender” is so vague and circular that it is surprising a body tasked with collecting facts about a population would even consider it as a valid data point.  

A further indignity to most of the population is that sex information is to be categorised as ‘cis’ or ‘trans’ man or woman, or non-binary. Although the standard warns that this classification “does not ascribe an identity to someone”, how did Stats NZ conclude that it is non-discriminatory and inclusive for the vast majority of people to suddenly be categorised, without consent, into a subset of their own sex? 

While affirming that “gender, sex and sexual identity are not interchangeable”, this new standard officially reinforces the ideological notion that what an individual ‘feels’ about their gender is more important than the objective reality of their biological sex. 

In the census, biological sex ought to be prioritised, otherwise a person could record whichever gender they ‘feel’ at the time and not disclose how often they have changed their gender or even which sex they were born. Having ‘gender by default’ will obfuscate essential data, meaning new statistics will not correlate to previous population figures. It will be harder to track ongoing data such as how biological women are ranked for salary and employment, and harder to quantify sex-based needs such as differing health care for males and females.   

For the census to have any value, it is essential that questions are answered accurately. Therefore, before the next census, just in case Statistics NZ’s dogma is actually a momentous breakthrough that overturns centuries of science and common sense, all good citizens should ensure they check their biological sex status for the latest update.