The stupidity of some attempts to collect data on TGD people

Update No. 1 

 I've gained access to some FoI information about debates on the topic of including LGBTIQ+ people for the last census, and my initial reactions are: 

• The inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people is essential, and long overlooked; 
• The acknowledgement of the reality of non-binary and intersex is a very belated and very welcome and essential step forward; 
  
• The people in the ABS (especially the "statisticians") phrasing the questions are either clueless, heartless, or bigots - and fail to acknowledge that past data is actually wrong . . . EXCEPT that it is recommended SOME questions have a "prefer not to answer" option; 
• The submissions made appear to be vague and well-meaning, but focus exclusively on getting inclusion, and FAIL to recognise the potential problems - especially the trauma that can be caused, which all trivialise to "sensitivity".
  This can kill people, you idiots.
  

I have asked the organisation I referred to below for more detailed and specific information, so anticipate being able to further update this in due course. 

I'm going to begin with a stupid question I received while presenting recently on LGBTIQ+ issues in my workplace, when we were discussing adding pronouns to signature blocks:

"Doesn't adding pronouns push people into making a choice?"

No. 

No it doesn't, IPOC (I managed to stop swearing at the time, but the trauma of this question led to me taking some sick leave), and for the following reasons:

• firstly, the overwhelming majority of TGD people know their preferred pronouns, and those who are questioning appreciate being able to change when they know; 
• many TGD people know that they prefer "they or them"; 
• the majority of those doing this are cisgender people with decency and the desire to be good allies; and
  
• trying to pretend gender doesn't exist is an utter nonsense.
  

I have also have come across a foretaste of yet more stupidity for the next census because - allegedly - of TGD advocates. The survey I saw, which was by an allegedly LGBTIQ+ organisation, shows what they are going to push, which is to ask for: 

• sex at birth; and 
• gender now.
  

This is allegedly because cisgender people were confused. Did they include explanations in the trials - like the explanations they buried deeper in the survey I saw? Why are the explanations AFTER the questions?

This is traumatising - not just "upsetting" as claimed when I contacted the organisation responsible: it is the exact opposite of the gender affirmation that is CRUCIAL to supporting the wellbeing of TGD people.

It is also mathematically inefficient. I doubt that they would be able, without doing a LOT of data manipulation, determine the different needs for:

• pre- (including voice training and electrolysis for M2F TGD people), non-, and post-operative TGD people? 
• different operative needs for those who choose gender affirming surgery (for instance, F2M operations involve chest reconstructions, not - as sometimes mis-described - double mastectomies, which is not an issue for M2F [who predominantly do NOT receive silicone breast implants])?
  
• the ongoing needs of, for instance, F2M (including gynaecological) vs the different needs for M2F (no cervix or uterus but still need some gynaecological support and subject to risks of breast cancer + bone loss problems) and non-binary?
• the varying extent of needs for psychological support - which, on the basis of the experience of myself and others I know, is related primarily to the amount of discrimination we experience. That is reduced when documentation is aligned with correct gender, but that doesn't appear to be covered in the survey I saw.

On that last point, the experience of many TGD people has been that all people who ask what the TGD person was at birth has been, without exception, wanting to discriminate - possibly violently. (This also ignores the reality that most TGD people were, in the essence, the gender they knew they .) That trauma is being triggered by the moronic construct of questions in this survey. 

The claim that this is somehow about getting data, when other approaches are available, does not take away or minimise that trauma. To put that another way, I see no difference between those responsible for these questions and the transphobic bigots who ask these questions as a prelude to violence. 

In fact, none of the survey had any sense of being supportive or affirming of TGD people - asking what current gender is does not counterbalance or even mitigate having asked what sex at birth was. (Do those involved in constructing this survey know how difficult reassignment was in the past, and that such questions trigger that?) From an ethical point of view, shouldn't the survey provide counselling / emergency contacts for those who need support at the start? After all, it is compelling respondents to out themselves - and that will be even more so when it comes to the Census. There was a suggestion that the organisation would propose this as an example to the ABS, and thus those behind it have a duty of care to the more traumatic situation of being coerced (in the legal sense) to out oneself to an organ of a notoriously transphobic government.