Redefining Gender in Data Collection Processes

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Sonika Pandey stated that the government’s policy of providing transgender people and other gender minorities Rs. 1500 in direct transfer was “inaccessible” and “ignorant”. Sonika, a 33-year-old transgender woman, revealed that over 80% of her community does not hold appropriate identity cards with their preferred names and gender identity which prevents them from creating proper bank accounts. Consequently, out of 4.8 million people belonging to gender minorities, only 5,711 transgender individuals received the bank transfer and 1,229 received the ration supplies. Although the country has made attempts to collect data on non-binary individuals, these individuals face countless issues in acquiring equal citizenship and have mostly existed at the fringes of society. In areas such as healthcare, financial services, and education, individuals outside the binary genders face exclusion owing to the lack of an inclusive data collection process. The United Nations’ Gender Equality in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2018 report specifies that there is no international standard for collecting and measuring gender identity data. This has resulted in a lack of data on people who lie outside the gender binary and makes them often vulnerable to discrimination and inequality which, in turn, often translates to a lack of a standard in data collection at the national level in different countries and the lack of correct data about individuals who may identify outside the binary genders.

The discourse of gender mainly revolves around the binary of woman/man or female/male. Limited research recording the experiences and health implications of gender minorities has led to heightened marginalisation and exclusion of people belonging to these communities. This binary-focused research poses a gap in understanding the importance of applying appropriate gender terminology in research, policy, and practice. A prominent application of this inadequate research is the Transgender Persons Act 2019. When, in July 2019, the bill was introduced by the Parliament, it received a negative response from the transgender community as it nullifies the NALSA judgement which recognised transgender people as the “third gender”. The new law is not only inadequate but also reverses the gains made to secure the rights of transgender people. Apart from nullifying people’s right to self-determine one’s gender by subjecting them to psychological, medical, and public authority’s scrutiny, it has also led to misrepresentation and invisibilisation of intersex people and their concerns by conflating the definition of an intersex person with that of a transgender person. When people of the community who were protesting against the bill were interviewed by local activists, Radha, a 22-year-old transgender woman, claimed that this clubbing of all gender and sexual minorities was done to simplify the process of research, policymaking, and surveys conducted by government officials as they could easily get away by marking them as the “other” gender.

In human developmental data, transgender identities are presently included within the umbrella of the LGBTIA+ community but are disregarded as a gender identity while assessing the gender gap. A study in 2014 found out that that the data on transsexual individuals have been conflated within the category of MSM (men who have sex with men) for HIV treatment and prevention. Significant differences between binary vs. non-binary gender groups in aspects of socio-economic status or other key characteristics such as relationship status, sexual behaviour, and housing status are known to shape health and have long-lasting impacts on it too. The lack of distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation has resulted in limited access to the availability of trans-friendly health services to the transgender community. The harmful impact of gender-binary policies in healthcare is depicted in a paper by Michael Hendricks which illuminates glaring health-related differences between transgender and cisgender people owing to stigma and mistreatment.

Even though some efforts have been made to achieve an all-inclusive policy and data collection process, it is evident that the transgender community faces several data challenges in the context of enumeration and identification systems which, in turn, prevents them from accessing different services.​ The stigma revolving around non-binary individuals also makes it difficult for people to be forthcoming about their gender identity. Due to the government dependence on incorrect data, the misallocation and under-allocation of funds and resources towards developmental priorities for transgender people have been seriously overlooked. Policymakers often do not consider the NALSA verdict as an official order to be followed. There are still states that do not offer ‘transgender’ as a category for the question about gender on various kinds of application forms. Most states have made little to no effort in understanding the challenges faced by gender and sexual minorities when trying to access their rights. Ignorance at the hands of policymakers and state governments only creates welfare programmes that are not fundamentally inclusionary.

Despite the intent of the Sustainable Development Goals “to leave no one behind”, gender-binary focused data collection is leaving gender and sexual minorities behind. Recording the gender of data subjects within the binary of male and female leads to policies and welfare schemes that are focused only on uplifting the people who identify within the binary. There is an urgent need for sensitive systems, especially those for data collection, with respect to already marginalised groups. It is important to advocate the clear distinction between gender and sex and that they are not terms that can be used interchangeably. To achieve sustainable and inclusive development, an inclusive data collection process undertaken by officials who have been properly educated over the subject of gender and sexual minorities is essential.

This article has been written by Shambhavi Tewari, a senior at Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Lucknow, India and a member of the Rethinking Economics India Network. She is pursuing the ISC Diploma in Humanistic Studies and is interested in gender violence in conflict regions in India and across the world. Occasionally indulges in literary and cultural comparativism through her heaps of books, while performing postmodernist critiques of public policies in her head.