Q1 Poor Construction of Gender Recognition Consultation — perhaps Q22?

Making questionnaires was/is a part of GCSE Design Technology which I taught (rather successfully) across the ability range with particular success among low ability male students. I regret to say that I would have returned this 22 question questionnaire to GCSE student suggesting a re-structuring to group questions together and a simplification of structure and questions. I applaud the enthusiasm for not one but two ‘Easy-Read’ information documents wrt ‘Transgender’ but question why having two helps, when they are not described in relation to each other, eg Part 1, Part 2, which seems to me to add confusion.
I am also puzzled that given this enthusiasm for communication, this is not matched by an ‘Easy-Respond’ document for people to download as a single document and not inside an 86 page whopper, whose pages start at page 3, thus scrambling the printing process by mis-identifying the page numbers
I would also observe — with Masters (with distinction) in Cost Engineering - that figures of £4m in the construction of this consultation have been mentioned, which might have been expected to generate a set of questions of at least GCSE Design Technology level.
It is valid to see if trans people with other ‘protected characteristics’ are facing extra hurdles in the GR (Gender Recognition) process. However even before Boris and Burka-gate, prohibition of female:male physical contact in conservative observance of Islam in UK (2.7M adherents, 1M born outside Europe ONS 2011 UK Census) was a ‘known known’. A similar separation between the (bio-logical) sexes is observed in British Orthodox Jewry and certainly ought to have been known and factored in by the Government Equalities Office. The GR (Gender Recognition) Consultation makes reassurances that sex-based protections are safe and yet they will be unable to determine the volumes according to (bio-logical) sex. So, why is there no ‘Equality & Diversity’ Monitoring included perhaps with Annex A. Why not another Annex for questions relating only to trans people?
Maria Miller MP, Penny Mordaunt MP, my previous service to HM Govt has been free gratis and for nothing (at no small expense to myself) and you needed only to ask in advance of this process for the necessary logic and fine-tuning.
Below I detail the challenges I face, as a person with exceptionally HIGH Functioning ‘Aspergers’, a ‘disability’ and another ‘protected characteristic’ who has an acute attachment to logic. This led to an MBE for services to ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender’ people because she pointed out to the FCO that they had British Embassies in every capital of Europe, including the European Union, and that demonstrating solidarity with LGBT+ people was as simple as hoisting a rainbow flag and giving LGBT+ people a nice cup of tea and a photo opportunity!

Observations of the Consultation Questionnaire:
1: Current Gender Recognition Process[1]
Do you regard yourself as a Trans person?
☐ Yes
☒ No (please go to Question 3)
Comment: It is valid to ask people to whom a process directly applies, questions about that process but
i) Grouping those questions together might seem logical Q1,2,10 & 11.
ii) Placing them 1st or last and directing people who are not trans accordingly might be less alienating to those who are not trans.
iii) When so much (?£4M) has been expended on the consultation (Masters with Distinction Cost Engineer — Aerospace Engineering), greater understanding of responses would have been achieved, with an ‘Equality & Diversity’ Monitoring form, perhaps with Annex A. [MBE in Human Rights of ALL for services rendered to FCO]
iv) Even before ‘Boris and Burka-gate’ customs within Islam prohibiting physical contact between female and male (who are not married) is a ‘known known’, & within the Government Equalities Office that prohibition within Orthodox Judaism should be known.
v) When a conflation of i) (bio-logical) sex — a protected characteristic and ii) Gender Identity with a clear foreseeable & foreseen [2] conflict of interests is involved, it seems contradictory, if not actually discriminatory, for this consultation to record (and seem only to be interested in?) the legally defined ‘protected characteristics’ of trans people in Question 10 but to make no record of the same ‘protected characteristics’ of those who do not define themselves as trans, which might suggest or lead to suggestions of bias in the consultation process itself.
vi) Making questionnaires was/is a part of GCSE Design Technology which I taught (rather successfully), this construction of questions is needlessly complex. Given that trans experience of current Gender Recognition process is being consulted on, why not group the ‘trans’ questions together and establish whether people are or are not trans in the first place, and structure the sequence of questions accordingly. It is so simple to state “If you have answered “no” to this question go direct to Question ‘x’. I would have returned this question to my GCSE student and asked them to simplify.
[1] Great effort to create two easy-to-read documents — no logical to complete documents as a single document. Poor use of numbers and titling and font size. (DT Teacher with value added GCSE results across the whole academic ability range especially with low ability students).
[2] Reassurances within the Gender Recognition Consultation process about no dilution of sex-based protections.
[ENDS]
