Queer Conflicts, Concept Capture and Category Co-Option: The Importance of Context in the State Collection and Recording of Sex/Gender Data

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Social & Legal Studies Pub Date : 2022-01-24 DOI:10.1177/09646639211061409
Ben Collier, S. Cowan
{"title":"Queer Conflicts, Concept Capture and Category Co-Option: The Importance of Context in the State Collection and Recording of Sex/Gender Data","authors":"Ben Collier, S. Cowan","doi":"10.1177/09646639211061409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Queer, trans and non-binary lives, bodies, relationships, and communities often complicate the taken-for-granted processes through which the state manages those under its power. In this article, we explore the forms of power and harm at play in attempts to quantify people through administrative processes of state data collection about sex and gender, and in the current UK and Scottish context, examine some of the sites for wider conflicts over constructions of sex and gender in public life. We emphasise the need to collect sex/gender data in ways that reflect the intersectional lives of data ‘subjects.’ We also suggest that governments and public bodies should not adopt a unitary definition of sex or gender in data collection exercises such as the census, or other administrative categories such as criminal justice records, and argue those who lobby to record ‘sex not gender’ in data collection are engaging in a strategy of concept capture (reducing sex to a binary, biological model that excludes trans and non-binary people) through the co-option of a number of administrative and legal categories across a wide range of social and political fora. We conclude by recommending that public bodies asking about sex and gender should: co-produce questions with the community that is being surveyed; ensure that the wording of each question, and its rubric, is sensitive to the context in which it is asked and the purpose for which it is intended; and avoid attempting to offer any overarching standard definition of sex or gender that would be applicable in all circumstances. To engage in meaningful sex/gender data collection and recording that does not cause harm, governments and public bodies should avoid relying on reductive, over-simplistic and generalistic categories that are designed to fit the standardised norm. In being attentive to individual contexts, needs and interests when formulating categories and records, they can make space for more intersectional experiences to be made visible.","PeriodicalId":47163,"journal":{"name":"Social & Legal Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social & Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639211061409","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Queer, trans and non-binary lives, bodies, relationships, and communities often complicate the taken-for-granted processes through which the state manages those under its power. In this article, we explore the forms of power and harm at play in attempts to quantify people through administrative processes of state data collection about sex and gender, and in the current UK and Scottish context, examine some of the sites for wider conflicts over constructions of sex and gender in public life. We emphasise the need to collect sex/gender data in ways that reflect the intersectional lives of data ‘subjects.’ We also suggest that governments and public bodies should not adopt a unitary definition of sex or gender in data collection exercises such as the census, or other administrative categories such as criminal justice records, and argue those who lobby to record ‘sex not gender’ in data collection are engaging in a strategy of concept capture (reducing sex to a binary, biological model that excludes trans and non-binary people) through the co-option of a number of administrative and legal categories across a wide range of social and political fora. We conclude by recommending that public bodies asking about sex and gender should: co-produce questions with the community that is being surveyed; ensure that the wording of each question, and its rubric, is sensitive to the context in which it is asked and the purpose for which it is intended; and avoid attempting to offer any overarching standard definition of sex or gender that would be applicable in all circumstances. To engage in meaningful sex/gender data collection and recording that does not cause harm, governments and public bodies should avoid relying on reductive, over-simplistic and generalistic categories that are designed to fit the standardised norm. In being attentive to individual contexts, needs and interests when formulating categories and records, they can make space for more intersectional experiences to be made visible.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
酷儿冲突、概念捕获和类别选择:情境在国家收集和记录性/性别数据中的重要性
酷儿、跨性别和非二元性的生活、身体、关系和社区往往使国家管理其权力下的人的理所当然的过程复杂化。在本文中,我们探讨了权力和伤害的形式,试图通过收集有关性别和性别的国家数据的行政过程来量化人们,并在当前的英国和苏格兰背景下,研究了一些关于公共生活中性别和性别建构的更广泛冲突的网站。我们强调需要以反映数据主体的交叉生活的方式收集性/性别数据。“我们还建议,政府和公共机构不应该在人口普查等数据收集活动中,或在刑事司法记录等其他行政类别中,采用性别或性别的单一定义。我们认为,那些游说在数据收集中记录‘性而非性别’的人,正在从事一种概念捕获策略(将性别减少为二元;通过在广泛的社会和政治论坛中选择一些行政和法律类别,排除跨性别和非二元性别的生物模型。最后,我们建议询问性和性别的公共机构应该:与正在接受调查的社区共同提出问题;确保每个问题的措辞及其标题对所提问题的背景和预期目的敏感;避免试图提供任何适用于所有情况的性或性别的总体标准定义。为了进行有意义的、不会造成伤害的性/性别数据收集和记录,政府和公共机构应避免依赖旨在符合标准化规范的简化、过于简单化和笼统的分类。在制定分类和记录时,注意到个人的背景、需求和兴趣,他们可以为更多的交叉经验腾出空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES was founded in 1992 to develop progressive, interdisciplinary and critical approaches towards socio-legal study. At the heart of the journal has been a commitment towards feminist, post-colonialist, and socialist economic perspectives on law. These remain core animating principles. We aim to create an intellectual space where diverse traditions and critical approaches within legal study meet. We particularly welcome work in new fields of socio-legal study, as well as non-Western scholarship.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Insecure Guardians: Enforcement, Encounters and Everyday Policing in Postcolonial Karachi by ZOHA WASEEM Book Review: Decolonisation and Legal Knowledge: Reflections on Power and Possibility by FOLUKE ADEBISI Everyday Healthcare Regulation: British Newspapers and Complementary and Alternative Medicine The Revolving Door of Im/Migration: Canadian Refugee Protection and the Production of Migrant Workers Legal Change and Legal Mobilisation: What Does Strategic Litigation Mean for Workers and Trade Unions?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1