Two Fields, One Reality: Why Every Public System Should Collect Both Sex and Gender Identity
Modern systems face a growing crisis of accuracy and trust. As political polarization intensifies and identity discourse fractures institutional consensus, a deceptive question lies at the heart of policy confusion:
Should we collect "biological sex" or "gender identity"?
The answer is not one or the other; it is both.
The question we should all be asking is:
Why was this question ever asked in the first place? Who does it benefit?
It benefits those already in power; for whatever reason, our political aura has become so polarized that even obvious, reasonable data collection takes a hit as each side uses it to bash the other ad nauseam. It is possible to overlook that poor behavior among analysts, politicians, and journalists - except that it traps citizens in the middle, making them believe there’s some kind of political will at stake.
There isn’t; it is just noise.
Of course we should let poeple state who they are, and of course we should be able to care for everyone's bodies appropriately. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Why are the political parties pretending it is? To distract from their ineptitude.
Collecting both biological sex and self-identified gender is the only way to ensure data accuracy, policy effectiveness, and human dignity in law, medicine, research, and public services. And if we weren’t all stuck in a weird loop of toddler brawls, we’d already have that.
What’s at Stake
When systems collect only gender identity:
- Medical providers may miss sex-specific disease risks (e.g., prostate cancer in trans women, ovarian cancer in trans men).
- Crime statistics may misclassify perpetrators and victims, distorting patterns of violence.
- Sports regulation may be rendered incoherent or unjust.
- Sex-based oppression (e.g., pregnancy-related risks, FGM, maternal mortality) becomes harder to measure or address.
When systems collect only biological sex:
- Trans and non-binary individuals become invisible in health, social, and demographic data.
- Misgendering in care and documentation leads to stigma, trauma, and mistrust.
- Policies can’t protect gender-diverse people from discrimination or exclusion.
The Two-Step Method: A Proven Framework
Researchers and agencies, including the U.S. National Institutes of Health, recommend the two-step method:
- Sex Assigned at Birth (e.g., male/female/intersex)
- Current Gender Identity (e.g., woman, man, non-binary, etc.)
This structure enables:
- Clinical precision
- Demographic transparency
- Legal clarity
- Inclusive recognition
It is not invasive. It is not ideological. It is simply what rigorous, ethical data collection demands.
Policy Applications
Healthcare:
- Improves diagnostic accuracy
- Enables appropriate screening and treatment
- Protects both sex-based and gender-based health rights
Criminal Justice:
- Tracks accurate crime statistics across sex and gender
- Preserves integrity in classification of inmates, victims, and perpetrators
Education, Employment, and Housing:
- Identifies and addresses discrimination and access gaps
- Enables targeted support where it is most needed
Law and Governance:
- Avoids ideological capture by binary extremes
- Builds policy that reflects reality, not political fashion
One Reality, Two Fields
Refusing to distinguish sex and gender flattens human experience into a false binary—either identity-only or biology-only. Both sides fail. Both erase people.
We don’t protect people by choosing between science and dignity. We protect them by building systems that can see clearly and care precisely.
Every institution—public, private, academic, or civic—should adopt a two-field approach. Reality demands it. People deserve nothing less. And we should already have been doing it.