Understanding the ramifications of erasing biological sex from official data

Vital data accuracy is at risk in the UK due to the erasure of biological sex in official statistics, health records, and education data. A detailed review led by Professor Alice Sullivan of University College London has exposed how the conflation of sex and gender has created inconsistencies in data collection across public bodies, including the NHS and the justice system. The evidence reveals significant real-world consequences ranging from missed cancer referrals to safeguards being overlooked in criminal and educational settings.

The trend of substituting the term ‘sex’ with ‘gender’ in official surveys started in the 1990s but has escalated over the past decade, as public institutions increasingly prioritise gender identity. The review published under the previous Conservative government highlights how this shift has made data on biological sex unreliable or removed it altogether. For instance, a Royal Navy sexual harassment survey omitted the collection of sex-specific data, opting to inquire only about gender identity. Similarly, safeguarding concerns have arisen, including cases such as a children’s camping programme which neglected to gather robust biological sex data.

This practice poses critical risks within the NHS. Traditionally sex-specific records have become amendable upon request by patients, often resulting in unreliable data. The review cites cases where patients missed essential health screenings like cervical smear tests or prostate exams due to inaccurate recording of sex. Laboratory tests may also face misinterpretation, with the potential for fatal consequences for transgender individuals and misaligned treatment pathways.

The justice system is also grappling with inconsistencies. The review identifies that many police forces record sex based on gender identity or Gender Recognition Certificates, resulting in artificial inflation of female crime statistics when male offenders are recorded as female. This lack of a standardised approach undermines crime data reliability and obscures critical trends in female criminal behaviour.

Educational institutions reflect similar challenges. Children and young adults increasingly self-identify outside traditional male or female categories, but the absence of biological sex data hampers sophisticated analysis of educational outcomes and career trajectories. Compounded by this lack of clarity, pay-gap analyses across the UK labour market remain flawed, with sex-based differential impacts either ignored or inaccurately inferred.

The review also warns of broader ramifications for democracy and policymaking. By prioritising gender identity over biological sex, some policymakers risk breaching existing UK data protection laws. The inadequacy of current practices has sparked concern among experts, with Maya Forstater, chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, condemning what she termed a decade-long erosion of data standards as devastating for individuals and governance integrity. Implementing Sullivan’s recommendations may be a crucial step in restoring impartiality in data collection and preserving the credibility of public statistics.