Archive for category FoI Requests
Leeds GIC update: Still confused
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality, FoI Requests on 3 February 2012
Further to last week’s post on Leeds GIC not understanding what they’re diagnosing, they’ve responded to further “clarify” their position in response to a follow-up by Emma Brownbill.
They’re still pretty confused.
Firstly, they apparently retract any claim to follow the DSM-IV: (this is despite it being listed on their web site)
Your example above follows the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV (TR)) which makes a differential diagnosis coding based on current age (302.6 Gender Identity Disorder in Children, 302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults).
However, as a provider of Adult Mental Health and Learning Disability Services, our Trust follows the current edition of the ‘International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems’ (ICD-10), published by the World Health Organization, which has five different diagnoses for gender identity disorder (F64 Gender Identity Disorders) as follows:
It then goes on to quite the ICD… which does not list a diagnosis of “primary transsexualism”, the subject of the original FoI request, anywhere. But wait! Later on in their response, when it’s pointed out to them that WPATH and HBIGDA are the same organisation, they apparently change their minds:
WPATH is a worldwide organisation that provides “Flexible Clinical Guidelines” – (stated on page 8, version 7). As previously explained, our Trust follows the guidance and recommendations from a number of clinical publications and these may influence our practice however these are guidelines and are used as such.
So, they might use other publications? Or do they? Further down, when asked to provide a copy of any “guidance, policies or procedures” in use:
As explained above, our Trust follows the current edition of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), published by the World Health Organization, for diagnoses of Gender Identity Disorders (F64).
So it’s ICD-10… but when asked if they plan to adopt the latest version of the WPATH SoC, and despite it having already been pointed out that this is the same organisation as the HBIGDA: (My emphasis)
As previously explained, our Trust follows the guidance and recommendations from a number of clinical publications, which includes the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the Harry Benjamin International Standards of Care, the Royal College of Psychiatrist standards (currently in draft format), Nice guidelines etc. However, these are guidelines and are used as such.
So, glad that’s been cleared up then?!?
Trans Diagnosis 101: Leeds GIC show how not to do it
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality, FoI Requests on 23 January 2012
It seems that Leeds GIC may be having a bit of an identity crisis of their own, given that in response to an FOI request by Emma Brownbill they make it clear they do not really know what they’re diagnosing people with.
First, lets look at the background to the request. Emma’s first question to the GIC was to ask for “the numerical designation and diagnostic criteria for Primary Transsexualism in DSM-IV”. This is as a result of some interesting statements on their web site, including one referring to “primary transsexualism… (In accordance DSM IV)”.
Why is listing “Primary Transsexualism” odd? It is a diagnosis regarded as outdated at best and appears in no current credible medical literature. It is certainly not in the DSM-IV – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and has never appeared in any edition. Even more so, the latest editions – DSM-IV onwards, first published nearly two decades ago in 1994, avoid the use of the term “transsexualism” at all and instead refers to “Gender Identity Disorder”. The last time “transsexualism” as a diagnosis appeared in the DSM, “homosexuality” was also listed.
This isn’t just playing with words, as they are very different diagnoses. If you have a diagnosis of “Primary Transsexualism”, you can’t identify as homosexual in your preferred gender.
Is this some confusion on behalf of administrative staff who put some outdated documentation up on the web site for their FAQs? It seems not.
The first part of the answer the GIC supplied was a cut-and-paste response from the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases edition 10 (ICD10) entry on transsexualism. This is a completely different document from the DSM-IV, plus the word “primary” still does not appear anywhere in the ICD definition. The second part of their answer is headed “Primary Transsexualism in DSM-IV” (Remember, that term doesn’t exist in the DSM!) and the criteria they give do not match those in the DSM-IV for Gender Identity.
So what do we have so far – a GIC that is a little confused over the differences between two of the three key documents defining the main diagnosis they would expect to be dealing with?
Sadly, their response continues to dig them a deeper hole when it comes to the third key source.
They were also asked what training their staff had in “as mandated by the WPATH Standards of Care (SoC)”. The response? “Although our Trust takes into consideration guidance such as the WPATH Standards of Care (SoC), our Trust primarily follows the guidance of the Harry Benjamin International Standards of Care.”
That’s a big oops: The HBIGDA renamed itself to WPATH in 2006. It’s the same organisation, and this response rather suggests they’re working off the older (2001) version 6 of the standards of care published before the HBIGDA renamed, not the latest
It’s pretty unforgivable for a Gender Identity Clinic to have no idea about any of these documents and suggests they’re not really sure what they’re diagnosing. Sadly, although Leeds GIC were the target of this request, it’s not unusual to hear of such things within other areas of NHS healthcare for trans folk too.
P.S. I’m not endorsing the DSM-IV-TR wording or definition here – it’s problematic in a number of ways, but it’s the most progressive one.
More on Poly and Trans erasure in the Census
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality, FoI Requests on 15 June 2011
Following on from my recent post on how the Office for National Statistics “corrects” peoples gender and marital status in the Census, I asked them how often this had happened in the most recent three censuses.
They don’t know.
I’m finding it a little strange that the ONS would have their computers correct data in this way and not track how often it is occurring. The ONS previously claimed that “…the majority of respondents recording themselves as being in a polygamous relationship in a UK census do so erroneously, for example, ticking the wrong box for one household member on the relationships question.” Given that they do not track any information on such responses, their “recognition” that such relationships don’t exist may boil down to “Well, nobody who works here is in such a relationship, so they can’t possibly exist”.
(The answer they provided makes reference to impudation, but it’s a generic measure tracking overall error rates in the census, based on a more detailed follow up survey to check the results. It does not appear particularly relevant to the question.)
Yes, there’s also a follow up FoI request I have just submitted, asking what other corrections are made and how they are justified.
Parliamentary answers “abbreviated for clarity and brevity” (Otherwise known as “Wrong”)
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in FoI Requests on 7 June 2011
In response to a Freedom of Information request about Prison Service consultations, an odd discrepancy arose: Caroline Lucas MP asked the same question in parliament and received a different response.
This doesn’t sound like a major issue as the differences between the two lists – organisations consulted over a particular policy change – seem minor, being just one organisation missing from the parliamentary answer. Still, the Trans community is not that large. How comprehensive a consultation can be regarded as can easily turn on if a single organisation, particularly one the size of GIRES, has been included in that consultation.
So, an internal review was requested and in due course a reply is received: The Freedom of Information request was handled correctly in the first place. Despite the discrepancy with the parliamentary answer, “Both responses are accurate“.
How exactly does that work? “The response provided to parliament was abbreviated and formatted for clarity and brevity.”
I wonder how many other answers to written parliamentary questions have been “abbreviated for clarity and brevity”. Particularly where the “clarified” version hides information the minister concerned would rather not reveal?
(P.S. I am still not clear if the answer to my FoI request is accurate – it may be that the parliamentary version is the correct one. I shall check with GIRES as I believe they were not in fact consulted)
Free sex change and relationship breakup, thanks to the census
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality, FoI Requests on 13 May 2011
It appears that the Office for National Statistics, when reporting on census data, will simply get their computer try to guess at what people intended.
If you’re a gay man and ticked the married box then the Office for National Statistics will ensure the “mismatch is… resolved using a probabilistic statistical system [to] alter one or more variables to make the response consistent“. And yes, they specifically state this could result in the system “changing the sex of one individual“.
This completely ignores the fact that married – not just Civil Partnered – couples of the same sex are entirely valid. Perhaps it’s a foreign marriage, or you’re Trans and married but don’t have a GRC for any of a whole host of reasons?
Oh, and they might divorce you anyway: If you indicate multiple relationships (A Poly household for example) they’ll just pick one to ensure everyone is in nice neat couples for their system. I guess anything else would just be Too Complicated for the statisticians.
I’ve submitted a followup FoI request to find out how common this has been in previous years. (Although previous years will not have had Civil Partner as an option)
Lies, damned lies and statistics?
Poly and trans folk and the Census
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality, FoI Requests on 28 March 2011
I rather suspect that for both these categories, the demographic is so vanishingly small that it will disappear into the noise, but having filled in the Census last night I was interested in how some of the data is processed, so I fired off a Freedom of Information request.
Firstly, poly households:
1a) If a household consists of a polygamous relationship, will the data be accepted by the Census system? For example, if P1 and P2 are married or in a civil partnership and P3 indicates they are a partner of both P1 and P2, is this considered a valid response or will the “partner” response be ignored and not entered?
1b) If the data will be accepted and entered into the census computer systems, will it be either reported on or (In summary form) available via an FoI request?
In short: Will you be able to answer the question “How many poly households are there in the UK?” I doubt many people will accurately answer the question so the ONS figures won’t mean much. However, I don’t know if there have been any previous surveys in this area. (If anyone is aware of any, let me know!)
Having just started to read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I do wonder if there are more people quietly getting on with their lives in such relationships than is usually reported on. Even more so than Trans issues, there doesn’t seem to be much of a poly community because stable poly relationships tend not to be the kind of thing one can really seek out. They just kind of happen and people are either open to being poly or not.
Someone is bound to disagree with me on the previous paragraph so I’ll caveat it now: In my own opinion, of course.
(Our census has been done on paper. Does anyone know if the online version restricts your answers at all and would not allow the response I’ve described above?)
Secondly question:
2) If there is an apparent mismatch between the indicated sex and marital status of individuals, how will this be entered into the system and handled? For example, if two individuals indicate sex as female but also indicate they are married, will this be entered into the census system as a marriage or as a same-sex civil partnership?
Translation: How many people are so militantly pro-equal-marriage that they’ll tick “married” despite technically being civil partnered. (And Vice-Versa, but I guess that’s a smaller group) There will also be people who have transitioned but have not received a GRC as they do not wish to divorce or are unable to obtain a GRC for any of the myriad other reasons, but there is no way of distinguishing between these two groups from census return data.
I expect to be disappointed with the response – I generally am with FoI requests like this – but they are potentially interesting topics if something useful does come of it.
Gender Recognition Act penalties
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in FoI Requests on 23 September 2010
Because of all the Equality Act discussion detail recently, I’ve been thinking about other trans-related legislation. An interesting and not often talked about offence is under section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which basically makes it illegal for anyone to “out” someone if they’ve found out by virtue of being an employer or similar. Although it’s a criminal offence, the penalties are quite mild: A “Level 5″ fine, which is up to £5,000. As an upper cap, that’s pretty mild given you could quite possibly maliciously destroy someone’s life.
I submitted a batch of Freedom of Information requests to various bodies: In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service, for Scotland the Procurator Fiscal and Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland.
Firstly, kudos to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland – I had a reply in 48 hours, well less than the 20 days they need to reply in. That’s amazing and much to their credit.
As to the responses themselves:
…there are no charge codes relating to [the Act], so no cases have been reported relating to this Act… (Procurator Fiscal)
…no cases have been reported to the PPS since the introduction of the legislation… (Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland)
…No offences under this Act/Section are recorded on the CPS Management Information System… (Crown Prosecution Service)
So it seems that it’s such a pointless offence that not only has nobody ever been convicted, but nobody has even been prosecuted… and there has never been a reported case to consider. Does anyone have a possible case they’d like to try to report?
Equal Marriage motion passes, and more on Stonewall
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in Equality, FoI Requests on 21 September 2010
There’s some debate over exactly what was said at last night’s event, which I shall clarify below. However, first I’d like to pay tribute to the excellent work by Adrian Trett, the Chair of the LibDem LGBT organisation. For those who haven’t already heard, the marriage equality motion passed at Federal Conference today, making the Liberal Democrats the first party in government to back equal marriage as a matter of policy. In the short time I’ve known Adrian, there is only one obvious flaw I have discovered: He’s far too hesitant to take the credit for all the hard work he’s put in to promoting this for the whole LGB and T community.
On the comments by Ben Summerskill last night, two points I would like to clarify: Firstly, I’ve seen it reported that Ben Summerskill said a campaign for equal marriage was an unethical one. He did not say this: the “unethical campaign” comment was aimed at Pink News after they tried to get Stonewall to clarify their position on marriage equality. I did speak to Ben briefly about this after the event and asked if he’d be willing to put Stonewall’s views in writing, but he refused and attacked Pink News for trying to get Stonewall to comment on marriage equality in a period of four days, which he seemed to think was unreasonably quick. I don’t know for sure but I get the impression he thinks Pink News are behind “Why the silence Stonewall”. (They are not, to the best of my knowledge)
Secondly, Ben was not questioned on the Stonewall policy regarding Marriage Equality. Amazingly, he volunteered the information himself in his speech.
There were no media I know of present at the event and although we’ve asked around, it seems nobody took a recording of the event. I was hoping to get video of responses to later questions but by the time I realised what he was saying it was too late – Ed Fordham, the chair, was understandably wanting to avoid rocks being thrown!
However, there were quite a few important people in the room: Two MPs, one of whom was a minister of the crown, an Ex-MP and a parliamentary candidate present. They made references to Stonewall’s views in speeches in support of today’s motion, which was covered online by the BBC. I’ve copied out the relevant points:
1147: Gay marriage now. Former MP Evan Harris spoke up for this one, arguing that now was the time to push for full equality – including allowing opposite sex couple to have civil partnerships. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone watches from her seat in the hall.
…
1207: Ed Fordham, of neighbouring Hampstead and Kilburn, gets a huge round of applause as he urges the government to “stop faffing around” and get on with legalising gay marriage. He attacks gay group Stonewall, which he says is against the motion because it could lead to tax losses on pensions, again earning a huge cheer. Apart from anything else, he says, the boost to the milinary industry from his mother if gay weddings are legalised would be worth it.
…
1214: Ex mayoral candidate Brian Paddick tells delegates how he got married to a “gorgeous Norwegian man” last year – “an intensely moving experience”. “My husband and I”, he adds, feel marriage is important, but they are only legally married in Norway. There should be equality in the UK, he says. He also hits out at Stonewall, saying “equality is equality”.
1216: Delegates vote overwhelmingly in favour of the motion calling for same sex marriages to be legalised.
Also widely reported on twitter is Stephen Gilbert’s comment, “It should not be for me as an MP to lobby Stonewall to support gay equality, it should be for Stonewall to lobby me.” I shall try to find the relevant portions from BBC Parliament when it ends up on iPlayer later today. It’s been picked up by the mainstream press though, such as this article by the Guardian.
Finally, in terms of the debate itself, I believe the five billion pounds figure may relate to the cost on private pension companies rather than on the state – I’ve submitted a Freedom of Information Request or two to try to get a copy of the report, if it exists. If it is a cost to private industry, this may go some way to explaining Stonewall’s view as it’s possible a large portion of their funding comes from big corporates who may stand to lose money from marriage equality. On the flip side, Stonewall’s rebuttal of of the Pink News story refers to a “Treasury Impact Assessment” which would imply it’s a state, not private cost.
It’s been noted that the rebuttal is quite carefully worded. It repeats the arguments advanced by Ben Summerskill that marriage equality will cost £5bn and that while “some” LGB people support marriage equality, (Yes, 98% is “some”) some do not. 2% is also, I suppose, “some”.
It also repeats all the arguments I recall him advancing for marriage equality: none.
Identity and Passport Service on Gender Markers
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in FoI Requests on 12 August 2010
And the second of my two FoI requests has also come back, this time from the IPS. Highlights – they don’t use the X unspecified gender marker and never have done and have consulted with the Trans community on this. I don’t know when that was, however – they say “recently” but that could be 10 years ago. They also confirmed only one pair of ID cards were ever issued under the transgender provisions. Text is below minus the usual stuff, I’ve also trimmed my questions down to make it more readable (Yuo can see the full list on my earlier post) but the responses are in full. Their reference for this request was FOICR 15540/10.
Passports
These questions relate to ICAO Doc 9303, Part I, Volume I.1 Can you confirm:
1. Does the Identity & Passport Service follow Doc 9303 (Or a standard that refers to it, such as ISO/IEC 7501-1:2008) for passports.
I can confirm that UK passports do meet the specifications for passports set out in
Document 9303.
2. Section IV permits use of “X” to mean unspecified as a sex on Machine Readable Passports(MRP) within the Visual Inspection Zone (Page IV-11, field 11) and similarly “<” within the Machine Readable Zone. (Page IV-16, line 2, character position 21). Has the IPS ever issued an MRP with X/< specified as
sex… (Remainder of question 2 and questions 3 and 4 omitted)
ICAO standards do not mandate that the use of “X” as a gender identifier must be made available by passport issuing authorities. Currently, IPS does not use this identifier and has never done so in the past. The passport issuing system is not currently designed to include “X” as a gender identifier. Thus, no passports have been issued with the “X” gender identifier. This policy was recently reviewed and transgender community groups such as Press for Change were involved in consultation on this topic. However, as with all passport policy, we are happy to obtain feedback from members of the public which will be used to input to any future policy reviews.
Identity Cards
1. During discussion on the Identity Documents Bill, Lynne Featherstone, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, implied that only one individual had has two identity cards issued under the provisions of The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Application and Issue of ID Card and Notification of Changes) Regulations 2009, section 7(2)(b). Can you confirm this figure is correct?
I can confirm that under the provisions of The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Application and Issue of ID Card and Notification of Changes) Regulations 2009, section 7(2)(b) only one set of ID cards have been issued under the Transgendered scheme.
DVLA reply to FoI request on driving licence titles
Posted by Zoe O'Connell in FoI Requests on 11 August 2010
I’ve received a reply to my Freedom of Information request to the DVLA – I’ve reproduced it minus the usual pre and postamble on such letters. Some quick highlights – I think they missed the point in that they talk about “recording” titles rather than their inclusion on the licence so I’ll probably resubmit the FoI request again, rewording the question to make it clearer. I’ve not received the attachment they mentioned, so perhaps that clarifies things somewhat. Secondly, one good point for many is you can basically put whatever title you want on the form or leave it blank if you don’t want one, regardless of gender. (Although I would guess for a change of name/title you may need to explicitly ask for the title to be removed or there’s a risk they’ll just re-include the old one)
If anyone is wanting to follow up on this on their own and reference this request, their reference number is FOIR2039.
1. It would appear that at least for the last 30 years, driving licences include title (Mrs, Miss) etc only where the holder is male or has an honorific title such as Dr., Lord etc. Can you confirm this is indeed current policy? Please supply a copy of the policy or guidelines issued to staff, if they exist.
Where a female applicant does not specify a title, then this field is left blank. Titles such as Doctor, Reverend, Lord and Lady are also included on driving licences. I can confirm that policy or guidance in this regard is not held. It is the responsibility of DVLA to accurately record information that has been provided to them by applicants for or holders of a driving licence. Where a female driver provides a title such as Miss or Mrs, DVLA will include the title on the individual’s driving licence.
However, guidance is available that instructs staff about the field codes to use when keying the information to be input on the driver’s record and I attach a copy for your information.
2. What is the reason for this policy, if it is not merely historical?
The Policy is historical and evolves over time in reaction to developing trends.
3. Has this policy been reviewed historically and if so, what were the results of that review, including minutes of meetings.
This information is not held. There have been no formal reviews of DVLA’s policy on recording titles. Of course where titles not previously identified are submitted by applicants then the matter will be reviewed as and when necessary.
4. Are there any current plans to review this policy?
Please see the answer to 3 above.
5. Would the DVLA issue a driving licence on request
a) without the title (to a woman)
b) with an alternative title such as “Ms”, (not indicating marital status) “Mx.” or “Mre.” (Gender-neutral form of Mr/Ms
The answer to both a) and b) is Yes.
6. If a licence would only be issued under one of the above only under certain conditions, what are those conditions (e.g. deed poll with the new title)
A deed poll would not be required for either title Ms, Mx or Mre.
7. In cases where the gender of the applicant is not obvious, how is this handled in terms of encoding the “gender marker” within the 7th character of the licence number? (For example, supporting documentation does not include it, the name and appearance of the applicant in the photograph is ambiguous and they have a non-gender specific title, such as Dr.)
DVLA would contact the applicant in circumstances where there was any uncertainty over their gender.
Update: I’ve now received the missing document on entering and handling title codes, which includes some rules on when you might need a Deed Poll. (If you want to call yourself something that implies a title, “Lord so-and-so” for example.)
Zoe’s Feeds