Michael Biggs, an Oxford University sociologist and board member of the gender-critical group Sex Matters, has raised significant concerns about the accuracy and reliability of data on the transgender population in England and Wales. His critique stems from the 2021 national census, which reported a figure of 262,000 transgender individuals in the UK. This number, according to Biggs, is “seriously flawed” and raises questions about the methodology used to collect and analyze the data.
One of the primary issues raised by Biggs relates to the wording of the census question regarding gender identity. The question posed to respondents was: “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” Biggs contends that this question, which closely resembles one proposed by a transgender campaign group in 2007, is inherently flawed. He argues that the wording may have led to confusion among respondents, particularly those with limited proficiency in English or who may not fully understand the concept of gender identity.
The proposed question from 2007, “Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth?” was rejected by a separate research group due to concerns that “non-trans people would not understand” it, especially if English were not their first language. Biggs asserts that this feedback was not adequately addressed in the formulation of the census question used in 2021. As a result, he believes that a significant number of respondents may have inaccurately declared their gender identity, leading to inflated figures and unreliable data.
In addition to concerns about the wording of the question, Biggs points to various inconsistencies and anomalies in the census results. He notes discrepancies related to geography, language, education, ethnicity, and religion, which cast doubt on the validity of the reported figures. For example, the data contradicts other sources, such as referrals to gender clinics and signatures on pro-transgender petitions. Moreover, there are inconsistencies within the data itself, particularly when correlating different categories of gender identity across different localities or comparing them with sexual orientation data.
Furthermore, Biggs highlights the overrepresentation of certain groups, such as individuals with limited English proficiency, in the reported transgender categories. He suggests that this overrepresentation may be indicative of confusion or misunderstanding among respondents, further undermining the accuracy of the census data. Biggs asserts that the flawed question design contributed to this confusion, ultimately compromising the reliability of the results.
The implications of inaccurate census data on transgender populations are significant. Government policies and resource allocation decisions may be based on these figures, potentially leading to misallocation of resources or inadequate support for transgender communities. Therefore, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of data collection methods is crucial for informing evidence-based policies and interventions.
In response to criticisms raised by Biggs and others, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) defended the design of the gender identity question used in the census. They stated that the question underwent a rigorous testing process, involving both trans and non-trans individuals, as well as individuals with limited English proficiency. The final wording of the question was confirmed through legislation after a census rehearsal in 2019.
However, the ONS acknowledged the inherent challenges in designing a question on gender identity, particularly due to the concept’s complexity and potential unfamiliarity to some respondents. They emphasized transparency in reporting the census findings and acknowledged the presence of uncertainty in the estimates, especially for voluntary questions like gender identity.
In conclusion, the critique offered by Michael Biggs raises important questions about the accuracy and reliability of census data on the transgender population in England and Wales. The flaws in question design, inconsistencies in the reported figures, and concerns about respondent confusion underscore the need for robust methodology and careful consideration in data collection processes. Addressing these issues is essential for ensuring accurate representation and adequate support for transgender communities in policymaking and resource allocation decisions.