Statistics Canada is No Longer Recording the Sex of Criminals and They Have Not Bothered to Inform the Public

I have encountered some confusion from people when discussing Statistics Canada’s recent decision to compel police departments across Canada to record the self declared gender identity of criminals in place of their sex. I suspect that the confusion stems from the fact that the Statistics Canada website does not outline this change.

The site makes it appear that they will be recording both sex and gender (what ever that is…) but they fail to mention that in respect to criminal data only gender is being recorded (as of January 2019). In an effort to, hopefully, clear this up I have posted screenshots of emails I received from Statistics Canada. I received the response below on April 25, 2019.

Anyone who would like to independently verify this should contact either Statistics Canada or the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

It is important to note that data from police is used to create the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR). The UCR is a necessary resource for research regarding the frequency and nature of crime in Canada. This incoherent change has rendered statistics on male and female victimization and violence unreliable.

When my head stopped spinning I sent a follow up email asking whether any announcement had been made by Statistics Canada regarding this seismic shift. I received the new sex and gender standards (sex/gender), a link to Bill C-16 (which added gender identity and expression as prohibited means of discrimination in the criminal code) and a link to Statistics Canada’s page for “gender, diversity, and inclusion statistics”. Nothing in this response (pictured below) indicates that there has been any effort on the part of the government to inform Canadians of this surreptitiously imposed destruction of crime statistics.

(*Edit: There has been some confusion expressed by people who do not understand why the above links do not constitute an announcement. The reason is, while they have announced their new definitions, they have not announced that crime is now only being recorded by self declared gender. )

I cannot imagine what is in the minds of the people who have crafted and implemented this mess. Do they really believe they can fundamentally reshape how Canadians understand sex? Do they really believe that they can erase sex as a variable in crime statistics, thereby robbing women of the ability to track male violence, and sneakily get away with it by not informing the public? It is obvious that they do. It is obvious that they are not foolish to believe they could because they have done it and few have noticed.

18 thoughts on “Statistics Canada is No Longer Recording the Sex of Criminals and They Have Not Bothered to Inform the Public”

    1. C-16 is vague by design and these changes (incld allowing men in women’s prisons) were planned from the start. People think that this is simply a mistake, virtue signalling gone wrong, but it appears to me that the government is intent on legally erasing recognition of sex. And they are doing it under the Status of Women! Madness.

        1. The Status of Women has been renamed Women and Gender Equality (WAGE). What I meant was the government is pushing gender garble under the banner of women’s rights. If you look on the website for WAGE you will see that they are pushing this ideology. They even have videos (GBA+) that maintain that gender is what is behind power imbalance in society. Gender here means gender identity not sex. It is so cynical and manipulative I can hardly believe it.

  1. Thanks for looking into this. It’s concerning that a group responsible for collecting statistics thinks they can switch sex and gender and then just hope for the best. Why not record both?

  2. This is the response I got:

    “Thank you for your inquiry related to the new gender categories and how they will be implemented, please direct your comments/questions to Warren Silver from Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS) directly as CCJS is the lead for reporting consistency in how police services measure and collect incident-based information into the Record Management Systems.”

    1. That is interesting. They try to make it sound complicated when really what they are doing is silly and insane. I asked for rationale from CCJS and about 6 weeks later I was sent garble. I will make a post on that response.

  3. I wrote to Statistics Canada based on this blog post and received a similar answer. My email:

    April Hailey [my bad] has published a credible report with quotes from Statistics Canada that demonstrate extremely concerning policy regarding recording sex in crime cases.

    This seems like nothing short of the abandonment of reason at Statistics Canada. The sex imbalance in violent criminality is well known to any researcher. The quoted definitions for ‘male’ and ‘female’ contradict those from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research:

    Indeed ‘male’ and ‘female’ as sex categories is an elementary part of biology and clinical science.

    I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and am a Canadian citizen. Statistics Canada seems to be embracing madness here.

    The response was boilerplate, key para:

    These definitions enable police to capture individuals as they are living and expressing themselves, and alleviates the need for police to ask every individual their sex at birth. Statistics Canada consulted extensively, and we performed the necessary statistical tests to evaluate impact of this change.

    I’m certain that many statistics would be robust to all sorts of noise, we don’t ignore observations or deliberately introduce inaccuracy since that is not sound reasoning. Statistics is premised upon sound reasoning.

    1. Haha close enough!

      Thank you for sending that fantastic email. It was prefectly said.

      It’s incomprehensible how they can think this will be accepted.

  4. Statistics Canada is doing the right thing. Saying that sex of a person is responsible for crimes is inherently bigoted. Sex does not cause crime, mentality does. And the practice is this unsound and frivolous.

    1. One sex happens to commit the majority of violent crime (this is true across cultures). John, do you imagine that to be a coincidence?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *