A Question of Sexuality - or Not

As a family genealogy geek I've spent a lot of time recently looking through the PDF files of the Irish Census from 1911. Indeed some friends will doubtless tell you of my excitement as the time for the County Londonderry returns to go online earlier in the year.


I know the importance in history of the accuracy of the information that is given. I also like the fact that some relatives have given extra information* not required, but which for history makes things easier to look into a verify. Therefore when I heard that the Government were considering adding a question about sexuality to the 2011 census I thought about whether this was a good idea or not.

There are two official takes on it, first there is the one of my former colleagues at the Office of National Statistics (ONS) who say that it won't provide a true reflection of the number of gay, lesbian and bi-sexual members of society. Then there is view of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who say it is vital to know how many gays, lesbians and bisexuals there are in Britain, where they live and what jobs they do so the progress of equality legislation can be measured.

I'd say that both are partially correct. The inclusion of the question isn't going to give an accurate reflection, indeed one of the most misrepresented groups would be the bi-sexual population. Anyone who spends anytime around the gay community will know that they are people out there who will say 'I'm not gay but...' the but is of course that they will happily engage in sexual acts with those of the same sex. There will be bisexuals out there who are in monogamous (or not**) 'heterosexual' relationships and not all of them will be totally open telling their partner that is the case, so to fill it in on a census form would definitely be out.

The census is there to gather an accurate picture of the population, the question of sexuality is not even one that every member of society is able to answer. Coming out is hard enough for many of us, to possibly feel obliged to do so, or lie about it on a census form when others around you are filling it in is an issue. In fact looking to see what would have happened in previous census returns for myself in 1991 I was denying my own sexuality, so would not have given an accurate return to that question. In 2001 I had just moved in with my ex-fiancée's parents, who fortunately did know my sexuality, but could have been embarrassing otherwise. That is just me, and while I don't wear it on my sleeve it is not something that is hidden from people around, people who will also appear on a census return.

What about people in residences of multiple occupancy? I notice the wording of the question appears to only cover straight, bi or gay. So what about the whole grey area of transgender/transsexual identities? Or what about asexuality or polyamorous relationships? Indeed it is a very complex issue and not one that can be passed of in one question and tick box. A spokesperson for the ONS said:

"A suite of questions would be necessary to collect data on the different dimensions of sexual orientation, including attraction, behaviour and identity."

Even then are we using the Kinsey scale for each of the three aspects? Indeed passed on the three question option my answers will have been changing over the last two census years and will be different again at the next one.

Yeah I know we already have the optional question about religion, but people are more prepared to talk about that, or simply write in Jedi. However, there is talk of rephrasing that question as a two-parter, the first asking "Do you identify with a religion?" then the yes respondents filling in which.

Obviously I'm not advocating 'don't ask, don't tell' as that hides more things behind the scenes than a level of openness will provide. However, I'm with the ONS on this one. The question cannot be worded in a way that will provide an accurate measurement, at this time. For starters it is not a complete question, second while there many out there are gay and proud, there are also many who are bi and shy.

From personal experience I would say that many straight and especially religious people may be opting out of answering the question. Indeed many religious groups are already saying it is an invasion of privacy. There is also as I pointed out liable to be a skew to the gay and straight responses and the bi-sexual (and others) segment of identity is going to be under-represented through a number of reasons. Or course that is personal anecdotal opinion and not quantitative (which some will argue is the point of the census question) but I think if there was a way to measure it (which I don't think there is) it would bear out in practise.

*Examples include cities rather than just County or other UK Country. Widow(er)s including length of marriage and children details when this was only requested of couples.

** Though I'll focus on the monogamous ones rather than those that also cheat, not a condition restricted to gay or bi but also present amongst the straight community, in case Jan Moir is reading this.

Keep out of My Face......book Jacqui

In my past I have had a KGB, Securitate and Stazzi file. Some of them must have been an interesting read.

The KGB file must have mentioned my visits to a youth detention centre, a prison, several hospitals, the local fire station, orphanages and my association with non-state registered Christians and giving two red guards a lift in our team minibus. The Securitate file may well detail all the contents of my suitcase that was forced open at Bucharest airport on the way to a school ski trip, the Sunday Times article on Nicolae Caucescu I'd avidly read on the flight over along with the rest of the magazine as I doubted even before being told that I'd not get that into the country.

However, none of those would be as anything compared to the file that this government must be compiling on me. Forget the fact that the majority of my daily emails on my work account are of a proprietary nature and the government could be sued under US law if my employer were so inclined. Forget the fact that as a result the government will know just where I will be campaigning, have the minutes of local party execs and who is feeding me information for my blog.

Now they want to access my social networks. Circumventing the privacy settings that I set up so that only certain people can see certain bits of that. Not you understand for terrorist ends but because they are private and not to be broadcast to the world. They want to know who I flirt with, what gifts I've been sent, what I think of the thought for the day. I have friends on Facebook in all political parties.

Do they really need to know how Iain Dale makes me blush? What Lord Faulkes's right hand woman Kezia Dugadale is saying to me? Or how one of my Nat supporting fellow Livingston fans is tackling me on the issue of the day?

What about my Northern Irish friends? Two of whom at least have relatives that have been in prison for terrorist activities. Is the fact that I am friends with them making me guilty by association?

What about our elected representatives on Facebook? Many of them use it as a tool to reach there constituents, one has even held an online surgery through the medium. Surely such communication between an MP, MSP, AM, MLA or Cllr and their constituent being held on such a database is a breach of confidentiality and guidelines.

Jacqui 'Big Sister' Smith is taking a knee jerk reaction, one that doesn't take into account the consequences of her actions. If you want to read my emails, if you want to see my Facebook, MySpace, Bebo or anywhere else details come to me with a warrant, the same goes for everyone else. If you have a suspicion against me go the whole hog.

Don't leave me naked and exposed with no privacy and the chance of having my details being exposed without my knowledge or consent by storing them on a third party data base on an off chance that I am one of the 3,000 suspects you think are in this country.