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.

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)

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?

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.

I should point out that the guidelines are described by the Ministry of Justice as a “historical” document rather than one that reflects current policy. However, I understand that the document is still available to prison management and does relate fairly closely to what actually happens at the moment. From the point of view of a transitioning prisoner, it is quite problematic in a number of ways.

Firstly, you had better hope you do not get locked up on remand while in the early stages of working things out but before getting referred to a consultant. Section 4.1 states that before you get as far as a trial, they will not generally even consider any requests for medical intervention. Certainly for larger cases, you can end up on remand for months and that is a long, long time for someone suffering from acute gender dysphoria. Combined with the pressure of prison and a court case, I struggle to think that anyone could survive that.

Secondly, the rules for the prison you are located (section 9.1) state that the default assumption is that you will be held in the prison related to birth gender until you are either post-operative or have a GRC. There’s the obvious Catch-22 here that someone needs to pass the “real life test” before surgery or a GRC, which one can’t do while still in the wrong prison. Even apart from that, being in the wrong prison is clearly going to be very stressful. It was ruled in 2009 (In AB vs. the Secretary of State for Justice) that this was inappropriate, even before the Equalities Act 2010 came into force although it’s possible the EA2010 has created new loopholes. Certainly in the recent case of Nina, we’ve seen someone inappropriately put in a male prison despite being fully transitioned.

And there is some very uninformed discussion in section 9.2 about the “risk” of putting a transwoman into a female prison, particularly if they have committed sex crimes and/or are pre-op. This is entirely backwards, as the effects of hormones (Just HRT, but particularly so for anti-androgens) is to reduce sex drive. Indeed, in some countries they have actually been used to “treat” sex offenders to reduce the risk of re-offending. Rather, there is an increased risk of a transwoman being attacked as she will be physically weaker than much of the rest of the population. Conversely, transmen will be being given hormones that will boost sexual and violent urges and make them stronger and would thus seem to pose a greater risk to the population in a female prison if they have been convicted of crimes of a violent or sexual nature, but this is not discussed.

As usual, it is a case of transmen invisibility coupled with the usual cisgendered fear of “men” getting in amongst the women. Straight, cisgendered males seem to struggle – even if they have the best of intentions – with the idea that someone might not be doing this for sexual reasons.

The new plan is apparently “in development” and should be implemented, if it is approved, “early next year”. There does not appear to be any opportunity for Trans groups to have any input into the draft document before it comes into force, something I intend to raise with the Ministry of Justice.

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.

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.)

Hat-tip to Christine Burns, it was her comments on Lynne Featherstones blog that alerted me to the possibility of unspecified gender on passports.

Firstly, the DVLA:

1. It would appear that at least for the last 30 years, driving licences include title (Mrs, Miss) etc only where the holder is female 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.
2. What is the reason for this policy, if it is not merely historical?
3. Has this policy been reviewed historically and if so, what were the results of that review, including minutes of meetings.
4. Are there any current plans to review this policy?
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 forms of Mr/Ms)
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)
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.)

And the somewhat more technical one to the Identity & Passport Service:

Passports
These questions relate to ICAO Doc 9303, Part I, Volume I. 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
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 and if so
a) Under what conditions were they issued
b) How many have been issued
c) Of those issued, how many are still valid
3. Does the IPS still issue passports with X/< specified as sex and if so, under what conditions. In particular, would the IPS issue such a passport on request.
4. If the IPS has previously issued MRPs with X/< specified as sex but no longer does so, the reasons for this change.

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?