Decision of the Complaints Committee – 00661-21
Liberadzki v The Sunday Times
Summary of Complaint
1. Stefan Liberadzki complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Sex question back on
census in blow to trans rights”, published on 24 January 2021.
2. The article reported on what was the upcoming census. It
stated that the national statistician had said that the 2021 census would
require everyone to “declare their sex” and that the 2011 census had “allowed
people to answer according to what gender they felt themselves to be". It
included a quote from the head of the government statistical service who
stated: “The question on sex is very simply your legal sex.”
3. The article also appeared online under the headline “Sex
question back on census in blow to trans lobby” in substantially the same
format.
4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in
breach of Clause 1. He said that there was no guidance or instructions printed
on the 2011 census form itself which advised how respondents should answer this
question, so it was misleading to report that the question was going to change
in the 2021 census in the way the newspaper suggested. The complainant said
that on this basis the headline was inaccurate as the question on sex in the
census would be worded the same as it always had been, stating "What is
your sex?". He said that as this question had never been removed from the
census, it was inaccurate to report that it was “back on” the census. The complainant also said it was misleading
to report the quote from the head of the government statistical service from a
radio interview without clarifying that this was not official guidance that
would appear on the form.
5. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It
provided the guidance for the 2011 census from the national archive which
stated that transgender people could “select either ‘male’ or ‘female’,
whichever you believe is correct, irrespective of the details recorded on your
birth certificate. You do not need to have a Gender Recognition Certificate”.
It said that information provided by the head of the government statistical
service was definitive guidance in itself, and where he had said that the 2021
census required a person to answer with their legal sex, rather than what they
believe their sex to be irrespective of their legal status, this could be
considered to be a change of the guidance. It said, therefore, that the
previous 2011 census was effectively a question on gender identity rather than
sex, and that this was reversed for the 2021 census which made the question
about legal sex. It said that headlines are a summary of the article, and that
the full article went on to explain why it was considered to be “back on” the
census and this was made clear within the first two paragraphs of the article.
The publication also noted that in between the 2011 and 2021 census there were
proposals from the Office of National Statistics to remove the word “sex”,
which were followed by trials causing doubt that the question would be included
within the 2021 census. The newspaper said that despite these trials and the
doubt it would be there, the question regarding sex remained on the census, so
it could be said to be “back on”. Despite not accepting a breach of the Code,
the newspaper did offer to amend the headline to read “Guidance changed on
census sex question in blow to trans lobby”.
Relevant Code Provisions
Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.
iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies
should be given, when reasonably called for.
iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
6. It was accepted that the question “What is your sex?”
appeared on both the 2011 and 2021 census. The question for the Committee,
therefore, was whether the way in which respondents were advised to answer this
question had changed, such that in the 2011 census people could answer with the
gender that they identified with, and in the 2021 census people would only be
able to respond with their legal sex. The Committee did not accept the
complainant’s position that because the guidance was online, as opposed to
written on the census form itself, that it was not considered official guidance
for the 2011 census. It also found that guidance provided by the head
representative of the Office of National Statistics supported the publications
position that the 2021 census would require people to answer with their legal
sex. The article explained that in the 2011 census people were allowed to
answer the question “what is your sex” according to which gender they felt
themselves to be irrespective of their legal sex, and that this had changed in
the 2021 census so that people had to answer the same question according to
their legal sex only. The Committee noted that headlines summarise articles,
although they must be supported by the text. Where the article set out the
basis for the 2021 census having put the question of legal sex “back on” the
census, after the 2011 census had allowed people to answer male or female
depending on what they believed themselves to be, rather than their legally
recognised sex, the headline was supported by the text and was therefore not
misleading. On this basis, there was no breach of Clause 1, however, the
Committee welcomed the publication’s offer to amend the headline.
Conclusions
7. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
8. N/A
Date complaint received: 24/01/2021
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 28/05/2021
Back to ruling listing