Government asked to reject ‘biased’ review by academic with ties to gender-critical group

Two LGBTQ+ organisations have rejected the conclusion of the Sullivan Review into how data and statistics record gender identity and “biological sex”, describing it as biased due to the fact the academic behind the review is a member of a gender-critical group’s advisory board.

Led by sociology professor Alice Sullivan, the independent review into the way UK public bodies record people’s gender identity was published on Wednesday (19 March).

The report, commissioned by the former Conservative government, said that methods of recording gender in data sets could lead to what Sullivan described as a “widespread loss of data on sex”.

She recommended instead that researchers focus on collecting “biological sex” data by default, in all research studies, which she said should aim for a “50-50 sex ratio,” with people categorised as either male or female.

Sullivan continued: “Sex as a biological category is constant across time and across jurisdictions, whereas the concept of ‘legal sex’ subject to a [gender recognition certificate] may be subject to change in the future. Using natal sex, future-proofs data collection against any such change.”

But LGBTQ+ advocacy groups TransActual and the Feminist Gender Equality Network (FGEN) claimed the report was rooted in “factually incorrect assertions about the binary nature of sex and gender”.

TransActual’s strategy director, Keyne Walker, urged the science, innovation and technology secretary, Peter Kyle, to reject the review’s recommendations, saying the report would “do nothing” to support the government’s equality and diversity objectives.

“It represents a deviation from the government’s stated position and would be a U-turn should it be implemented,” Walker claimed. “Worse, the experience of those working in the field suggests that far from improving data quality, the measures promoted by this report would make data collected on sex and gender far less reliable.”

Concerns raised by Sullivan’s ties to anti-trans groups

Beyond the report’s recommendations, Sullivan’s ties to historically anti-trans groups, such as Sex Matters – a gender-critical organisation that states its mission is to “promote clarity about sex in law, policy and language in order to protect everybody’s rights”, have raised red flags for LGBTQ+ groups.

A spokesperson for TransActual also claimed that the questions in a “call for evidence” survey for the report were “leading”. When asked for clarification by PinkNews, they explained that they were referring to a section in the survey titled “Call for evidence Strand 2 Barrier to research on sex and gender,” which begins: “The loss of robust data on sex in the UK has raised concern.”

It then asks respondents to explain “what barriers to research have you faced,” with options that include: “Compelled speech (being forced to assent to certain views, statements or signals)” and “Self-censorship and chilling effects (for example, feeling unable to express certain views).”

The survey also only gives respondents two options to fill in under the “Sex” section: male or female, offering no option for non-binary, intersex or gender-non conforming people.

Sex Matters, founded by Rebecca Bull, Naomi Cunningham, Emma Hilton and Maya Forstater, states in its list of principles that “there are two sexes: female and male” and insists “people shouldn’t be afraid to say this”.

Alice Sullivan has acted within Sex Matters’ advisory group for several years and has written guest posts on the organisation’s website, including in 2021 when she claimed there was a “political project to deny the material reality of sex.”

TransActual and FGEN claim that Sullivan’s association with gender-critical groups could have compromised her position as an independent reviewer and was a “clear sign of bias”.

Groups urge government to reject Sullivan Review’s findings

TransActual and FGEN warned that implementing the review’s recommendations could cause “significant harm” to all people and would undermine the government’s aim of delivering a “functional cross-agency data system”.

A spokesperson for the groups said: “To be functional, data used by government and organisations must reflect people’s lived realities. This includes gender and, in some contexts such as in medicine, assigned sex at birth and trans status.”

The organisations urged the government to reject the former Conservative government’s “culture-war approach” to data collection and instead engage with “people with lived experience”.

Dr Kevin Guyan, a chancellor’s fellow at the University of Edinburgh Business School and a director of the Gender + Sexuality Data Lab, said the review, a “hangover from the former Tory government’s mission to address ‘wokeism in science'”, went against a “fundamental principle” that methodology should change based on “specific questions under investigation”.

He went on to say: “The review’s similarities to what is currently unfolding in the US are stark. [The Department of Science, Technology and Innovation], the UK government, researchers, funders and public bodies need to recognise this Trumpian intervention for what it is: an attempt to erase trans and non-binary people from existing in data.”

In a post on X/Twitter on Thursday (20 March), health secretary Wes Streeting gave his support to the review, saying it “underlines the importance of recording biological sex”, adding: “Doing so does not prevent us from recording, recognising and respecting people’s gender identity where these differ.”

When approached for comment, a Department of Science, Technology and Innovation spokesperson replied:

“This government is clear that the collection of accurate and relevant data is vital in research and the operation of effective public services, particularly when it comes to sex.

“We are grateful to Professor Sullivan for her work, which has been shared with relevant government departments and public organisations, including the ONS.”

PinkNews has also reached out to Alice Sullivan for comment.