Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology

Lysenkoism and The Gangs Who Couldn't Shoot Straight

Joanna Williams, in her detailed essay on The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology, provides an entire chapter on the “ideological capture” of a wide range of social institutions. While this Substack plans to address other institutions at a later time, this particular essay will be limited to giving some evidence of its impact only on the Statistics Departments of Britain, New Zealand, and Canada.

Exactly how and why that corruption has occurred is a profoundly complicated and convoluted tale, the roots of which go rather deep and into some quite toxic, mephitic and pathological territory. But there are any number of sources who argue that the too-common conflation of sex and gender has contributed to a conceptual and political muddle – a conflation which has been “implicated in the development of essentialist thinking” which has in turn “been linked to the justification of systems of prejudice in modern society.” Although many people and groups have commendably attempted to clarify that muddle with something in the way of a more or less clear demarcation between those two categories. For example, an editorial in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) provided some delineation of the differences, and some more or less credible justifications for those demarcations:

"Distinction is critical for good healthcare:

Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. The World Health Organization states, 'Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined.' ...."

Although, in passing, they sort of leave hanging several sticky questions, one of which is exactly how the sexes are to be defined biologically, and another of which is to what extent those “behaviours” might reasonably be said to be heavily influenced even if not entirely determined by biology.

However, while the consequences of that conflation can sometimes be amusing – who knew that fish had personalities? 🙄 – a particularly pernicious consequence is the too common effort to redefine the sexes from a binary to a spectrum (here, & here). Moot of course what are the ultimate justifications and “reasons” for that redefinition, but the “politicisation of the definition of sex” has come from virtually all quarters of the compass, many based on very shoddy “science” indeed:

Tangled webs and all that, but one of the primary motivations for that seems to be the rather desperate if not unseemly efforts of the transgendered to promote the view that they can actually change their sex, most often by equivocation and bait-and-switch with the biological definitions:

One may be amused or horrified to note that Merriam-Webster’s definition 1b for “male” is “having a gender identity that is opposite to female” – a charter member in the “Circular Definitions R Us” franchise.

But how else can they justify a claim to compete in sports that are rather clearly designed for the exclusive use of women (i.e., “adult human females”)? But that position is flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions. Houston, we have a serious and mission-critical problem.

In any case, with that preamble under our belts we’re now able to address the bills of particulars for each of the 3 institutions “ideologically captured”, directly or indirectly, to a greater or lesser extent by gender ideology of one flavour or another. And first in the docket is Britain’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) which apparently attempted to change the 2021 Census to allow citizens to use their (entirely subjective) “gender identity” as an answer to the question, “what is your sex?” And wound up getting spanked for their troubles by the High Court following a commendable challenge by the campaign group Fair Play for Women. Alice Sullivan – Professor of Sociology and Head of Research at the Social Research Institute, University College London (UCL) – wrote an illuminating summary and analysis of that case, the abstract of which includes:

Yet, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) sought to redefine sex to encompass gender identity for the purposes of the 2021 England and Wales census. With just days to spare before the census date, the ONS was forced to concede that it did not have the authority to redefine sex in this way, following a preliminary judicial review hearing where their arguments were given short shrift. This outcome raises the question: how and why did the ONS find itself in court defending a position which appeared to lack both coherence and legal foundations?

“How?”, indeed. Clearly, the barbarians are not just at the gates, but have managed to weasel their way into positions of authority in our most reputable and important institutions.

The second such institution that also has “pride of place” in the docket is New Zealand’s own department of Statistics. While they do have a fairly impressive looking “Concept and Classification Management System” – at least at first blush – any detailed spelunking there reveals the extent of the rot that gender ideology has wrought – so to speak. For instance, their definition of:

Lesbian: A woman who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex or gender.

Some women certainly weren’t impressed:

Stats New Zealand has clearly failed not just lesbians but Biology 101. And they never do get around to defining precisely what is meant by “male” and “female” – presumably a “concept” of more than passing relevance and utility. Although, to be fair, the definition of those two terms is, distressingly, such an open and contentious question – here be dragons, more of which later – that they may have been reluctant to stick their necks out very far on the topic. But the closest they manage to get to calling a spade a shovel is this bit of blathering:

Sex: The distinction between males and females based on the biological differences in sexual characteristics (Statistics NZ, 1995). Sex is biologically determined and is based on chromosomal and physical attributes.

Which attributes? Which “sexual characteristics”? How is it “biologically determined”? But they really cross the Rubicon in style while showing their true colours with this bit of gobsmackingly anti-scientific claptrap:

Sex reassignment occurs where a person has undergone the necessary treatment to permanently change their sex. If a person's sex is indeterminate at birth, sex assignment occurs when they undergo treatment to become male or female.

Only clownfish – and members of more than a few other species – “become male or female”. And that because they change the type of gamete they produce – which is flatly impossible for humans.

But to conclude this sad tale – rounding out our rogue’s gallery of those guilty of various crimes against reason, logic, biology, and the venerable principles of government itself – we have Canada’s own Statistics Department. Some eighteen months ago Statistics Canada opened up their “consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards” to all and sundry – to which I, as a dutiful Canadian, made my own contribution (article here on Google Drive). Which was largely motivated by astoundingly clear evidence of their “ideological capture” by gender ideology in one egregious manifestation or another.

For instance, while their opening statement (below) of their objective seems commendable at first blush, a comparison between it and their subsequent “definitions” of gender makes a mockery of their claim to a “consistent manner”:

Statistical standards for gender and sexual diversity … allow for the reporting of statistically diverse groups of the population in a consistent manner.

Which is rather impossible in the light of the following:

While sex is understood in terms of biological features, gender is a multidimensional concept that is influenced by several additional factors, including biological characteristics, cultural and behavioural norms, and self-identity. Caution should be exercised when comparing counts for sex with those for gender. For example, female sex is not exactly the same as female gender. …. Gender is a complex subject with various cultural and international conceptions. Furthermore, this concept is strongly affected by ongoing social change and, as a result, is constantly evolving.

If, as they claim, “gender is a multidimensional concept that is … constantly evolving” then it seems rather risible to claim that they’re able to report on the various genders – 56 and counting on Facebook – in any “consistent manner”. But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg since their later definitions make it manifestly clear that they haven’t a hope in hell of ever reporting on those groups in that “manner”:

1. Male gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as male. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as male.

2. Female gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as female. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as female.

They can’t even define what they mean by “male gender” and “female gender” without falling into a bottomless pit of circular definitions – hardly “consistent” with anything right out of the chute. Another outlet in the “Circular Definitions R Us” franchise.

But while Stats Canada has usefully and commendably differentiated between sex and gender – a step up from Britain’s abortive and quite ridiculous efforts to adulterate sex with gender – it is a matter of serious concern that it has thrown its lot in with a feminist and risibly pseudoscientific conceptualization of gender – largely a synonym for personalities and personality types.

If they were really serious – and if they actually had any commitment to, or even knowledge of various scientific principles – about “reporting on statistically diverse groups” then there are far better models of personality types than those provided by the currently defined concept of gender. Though it is maybe a bit of a puzzle why Stats Canada thinks it of any import or value to “report” on the myriad of personality types that are on tap: 25% of Canadians are introverts, and 75% of us are extroverts? 🙄 Our tax dollars at work … But as I put it in my submission:

And relative to those questions, one might wonder why StatsCan did not base those efforts on a greater quantity of mainstream and credible science and psychology. For instance, StatsCan could just as well have based its personality type categorizations on, say, Jung’s “eight psychological types” or on the 16 types of the Myers-Briggs system [MBTI].

Although, according to Wikipedia, the MBTI is deemed to be little better than “a Chinese fortune cookie”, and “pseudoscience.” But this same accusation could be plausibly made about the definitions for various personality types subsumed under the heading of “gender” being promoted by WHO and Statistics Canada. Furthermore, if StatsCan wishes to be considered forward-thinking, it could be pressured to go the way Facebook has, by providing users 56 gender choices. One might reasonably wonder also – given StatsCan’s efforts to track gender’s “constant evolution” – whether it has any plans to update their “standards” accordingly.

Hard to believe the social and psychological rot that gender ideology has produced – and in institutions that should have been immune to pseudoscience. But my conclusions and recommendations were largely as follows:

1. Statistics Canada should clearly emphasize and endorse biological definition for the sexes, and that “gender” denotes various psychological and sociological attributes apart from the biological.

2. Further, it should promote the exclusive use of “male” and “female” to describe the sex categories, and promote the use of “feminine” and “masculine” to denote the major but non-exhaustive categories of gender.

3. Statistics Canada is more likely to reach its broader objectives for the Canadian public by subscribing to and endorsing the biological definition for the sexes, rather than the “institutional” one, and consider a thorough review of the questionable provenance of its definitions for gender.

As I’ve argued or suggested in my Welcome post, there is some merit and value in the concept of gender, at least to the extent that it is a synonym for personalities and personality types, many of which show clear differences in frequency of occurrence between men and women:

But any social benefits that might accrue from having a better understanding of those differences are going to be lost if our various social institutions – statistics departments in particular – are ideologically captured by the pseudoscientific claptrap being peddled by gender ideologues of various stripes.