LGBTQ+ Groups Criticize Academic Review on Gender Data

Two prominent LGBTQ+ advocacy groups have strongly criticized the conclusions of a recent independent review concerning the collection of gender identity and sex data. The review, led by sociology professor Alice Sullivan, has been labeled as biased due to Sullivan's alleged ties to a gender-critical organization.

The review in question, commissioned by a previous conservative administration, was released on March 19. It focused on the methodologies used by UK public bodies to record individuals' gender identity and biological sex. Sullivan's report suggested that the current methods could potentially result in a "widespread loss of data on sex." As a remedy, she proposed that researchers should prioritize collecting data on "biological sex" by default in all research studies, aiming for a "50-50 sex ratio," categorizing individuals strictly as male or female.

This recommendation has sparked controversy, with LGBTQ+ groups TransActual and the Feminist Gender Equality Network (FGEN) expressing strong opposition. They argue that the report is based on "factually incorrect assertions about the binary nature of sex and gender." Keyne Walker, TransActual's strategy director, has called for the science, innovation, and technology secretary, Peter Kyle, to dismiss the report's findings.

Walker stated that adopting the report's recommendations would not support governmental equality and diversity goals. "It represents a deviation from the government's stated position and would constitute a U-turn if implemented," Walker claimed. He added that rather than enhancing data quality, the suggested measures could make data related to sex and gender less reliable.

Concerns Over Ties to Gender-Critical Groups

The controversy surrounding the review extends beyond its recommendations. It also involves Sullivan's connections to groups known for their gender-critical views, such as Sex Matters. This organization, which aims to "promote clarity about sex in law, policy, and language," has raised concerns among LGBTQ+ groups.

Critics have pointed out that the survey conducted as part of the review was potentially biased. A section of the survey titled "Call for evidence Strand 2 Barrier to research on sex and gender" has been described as leading, with questions that presuppose a loss of robust data on sex in the UK.

Furthermore, the survey limited respondents to selecting only "male" or "female" under the "Sex" category, providing no options for non-binary, intersex, or gender-nonconforming individuals. This lack of inclusivity has been cited as another flaw in the review process.

TransActual and FGEN have argued that Sullivan's association with Sex Matters and other gender-critical groups could compromise her objectivity as an independent reviewer. They assert that this connection is a "clear sign of bias."

Calls to Reject the Review's Findings

The advocacy groups are urging the government to reject the review's findings, warning that implementing its recommendations could cause "significant harm" and undermine efforts to develop a "functional cross-agency data system." They emphasize that government data must reflect people's lived realities, including their gender identity and, in relevant contexts, assigned sex at birth and trans status.

Dr. Kevin Guyan, a chancellor's fellow at the University of Edinburgh Business School and director of the Gender + Sexuality Data Lab, described the review as a product of a previous government's attempt to address so-called "wokeism in science." He criticized it for contradicting the fundamental principle that research methodology should adapt to the specific questions under investigation.

Guyan further highlighted parallels between the review and similar developments in the United States, suggesting it represents an effort to erase trans and non-binary individuals from data records.

Despite this backlash, the review has received some support. Health secretary Wes Streeting expressed his backing for the findings, emphasizing the importance of recording biological sex while also recognizing and respecting individuals' gender identities.

The Department of Science, Technology, and Innovation has expressed gratitude to Professor Sullivan for her work, stating that the review has been shared with relevant government departments and public organizations, including the Office for National Statistics.

This ongoing debate highlights the complexities involved in collecting gender and sex data and underscores the need for inclusive and accurate data collection practices that acknowledge and respect the diverse identities of all individuals.