LGBTQ+ Groups Urge Rejection of Controversial Sullivan Review

Two prominent LGBTQ+ advocacy groups have expressed serious concerns over the findings of the Sullivan Review, which examines how public bodies in the UK record gender identity and biological sex in data and statistics. The groups, TransActual and the Feminist Gender Equality Network (FGEN), argue that the review is biased, primarily due to the academic conducting it, Professor Alice Sullivan, being a member of a gender-critical group's advisory board.

The review, led by sociology professor Alice Sullivan, was published on March 19, and has sparked significant controversy. Commissioned by the previous Conservative government, the report highlights issues with current methods of recording gender in datasets, which Sullivan claims may cause a "widespread loss of data on sex." She recommends that research studies should prioritize collecting data on "biological sex" by default and aim for a "50-50 sex ratio," categorizing individuals strictly as male or female.

However, LGBTQ+ organizations have raised concerns about these recommendations. TransActual's strategy director, Keyne Walker, has called upon Peter Kyle, the science, innovation, and technology secretary, to reject the review's recommendations, arguing that the report does not align with the government's equality and diversity goals. Walker claims the report "represents a deviation from the government’s stated position" and argues that implementing the report's measures would reduce the reliability of data collected on sex and gender.

Concerns Over Sullivan's Gender-Critical Ties

Further criticism of the report stems from Professor Sullivan's associations with gender-critical groups, particularly Sex Matters, an organization advocating for "clarity about sex in law, policy, and language." Sullivan's role within Sex Matters and her previous writings for the group have led LGBTQ+ advocates to question her objectivity as an independent reviewer. TransActual and FGEN assert that her ties to such groups could compromise the integrity of the review and indicate a bias against trans and non-binary individuals.

The survey used in the review process has also been criticized. It reportedly contains leading questions, particularly in a section titled "Call for evidence Strand 2: Barrier to research on sex and gender," which assumes a loss of robust data on sex in the UK. The survey's limited options for respondents to identify their sex, offering only "male" or "female" without alternatives for non-binary or intersex individuals, have been particularly contentious.

Advocacy Groups Call for Action

TransActual and FGEN have urged the government to dismiss the report's findings, cautioning that its implementation could cause "significant harm" and undermine the goal of creating a functional cross-agency data system. They emphasize the importance of data reflecting people's lived experiences, including aspects of gender identity and, when relevant, assigned sex at birth and trans status. The groups advocate for engaging with individuals who have lived experience rather than adhering to what they perceive as a "culture-war approach" inherited from the former Conservative government.

Dr. Kevin Guyan, a chancellor’s fellow at the University of Edinburgh Business School, has also weighed in, criticizing the review as a "hangover from the former Tory government’s mission to address ‘wokeism in science’." He stresses that methodology should be responsive to the specific questions being investigated, and he warns that the review aligns with broader trends to erase trans and non-binary identities from data.

Responses and Reactions

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has expressed support for the review, noting the importance of recording biological sex while also recognizing and respecting gender identity differences. This stance highlights the division among politicians and policymakers regarding the approach to data collection on gender and sex.

In response to inquiries, a spokesperson for the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation emphasized the necessity of collecting accurate data for research and public services, particularly concerning sex. They acknowledged Professor Sullivan's contributions and noted that her work had been shared with relevant government departments and public organizations, including the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The ongoing debate underscores the complex interplay between data collection methodologies, political influences, and the lived realities of LGBTQ+ individuals. It remains to be seen how the government will respond to the calls from advocacy groups to reject the Sullivan Review's recommendations and what implications this will have for future data policies.