Sex

Kia ora, talofa, hello, and welcome to the Census 2018 discussion on Sex. Statistics New Zealand wants to know what people think, so here’s your chance to have your say. I am really looking forward to hearing from you on this topic.

I am also facilitating the discussions on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

Beyond the absolutely necessary inclusion of intersex people, there needs to be more clarification as to what Statistics New Zealand defines as sex and whether for trans people, it's affected by the dominant sex hormone in their bodies.

Sex is collected for analysis of employment, health and education. More often it is perceived gender that affects employment statistics rather than biology. Employers don't check down our pants or do a blood test for sex hormones before considering whether to employ us or not. Health is another mixed bag. Sex hormones affect typically gendered health issues, not just genitals.

I would also note that many of the arguments for not including sexual orientation in the census due to complexity and relevance outside of a health context also apply to the case for including sex on the census. If it wasn't for the legal requirement, I would question why there is a double standard.

Welcome @meganbowradean1 . You raised some great points! See here for a Statistics New Zealand definition and discussion of Sex, which says trans people should choose the sex they are living as. Do trans people have trouble answering this question?

Yes. I am entirely biologically female - I am not and currently do not have plans to change this. As a non-binary person, I would choose simply not to answer (and risk nullifying my census) before I checked female, regardless of if it is technically, medically correct.

However if there was an option for ticking assigned female at birth but otherwise identifying (in a more succinct way), I would happily tick that.

Also the issue of "false responses" with regards to including intersex people is in my opinion irrelevant. Including it would achieve two incredibly important goals - both by allowing real data to emerge on a area in which we as a society need to vastly improve and by, you know … doing the right thing as a country by acknowledging that intersex people are real rather than further institutionally discriminating against them?

That's my thought anyway - obviously as I am not intersex my opinion is far less relevant than that of someone who lives this life experience.

Professor Milton Diamond estimates that based on biological data, 1 in 100 people has an intersex condition ( a term covering a range of different chromosomal and biological features). Only 1 in 2,000 people may appear sufficiently different to come to medical attention early in life. A Census question on sex as in male or female and/or intersex would be useful and is needed for raising awareness and future planning. The resulting data should be flagged as being an underestimate because some people don't know they are intersex. Finding out may relate to adult medical examinations to identify causes of reproductive infertility, and not all intersex people seek to have children. Examples include Turner syndrome (XO a female variant) and some with androgen insensitivity condition (XY but presenting female). Some people may identify as both male (or female) AND with an intersex condition. While this variation may be more difficult for Statistics to accommodate, that isn't a reason to ignore the issue.

I feel like I sometimes have trouble ticking female for sex as well - being genderfluid. But as well as that NZ has an option for a third or other option on our passports just marked as X don't we, whats to stop us using that for the census - it's already a governmentally recognised definer.
Also like Megan said the sex question is generally more treated as a gender question not a health question, so shouldn't its options reflect that.

Thanks @rowanburnettjones, @kayscarlet and @chrose for joining the discussion and providing your views and knowledge. It is fantastic to have both facts and experiences. It seems X is used by the Department of Internal Affairs to incorporate both sex AND gender identity, so may not be so useful in the census context where it is vital to keep sex - a legal requirement - separate from gender identity.

Lisa said " it is vital to keep sex - a legal requirement - separate from gender identity" .... but this a circular argument. Sex (by which many people think of gender) is a legal requirement because that is how the law is currently worded. Laws can be changed, as with the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 which defines marriage as "the union of 2 people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity". That Act refers to sex and to gender identity to ensure that the emphasis on the couple not any distinctive features. If a law changes is needed (and I don't believe it is) then it could be facilitated through the annual Statutes Amendment Bill for minor legal changes.