PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 5, 2026Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers2 citationsOpen Access

A Critical Response to the UK's ‘Sullivan Review’ Into Sex and Gender in Research and Data

View Full Paper
TToddFCFelicity Callard

Key Points

  • This intervention addresses the implications of the Sullivan Review for the inclusion of trans and gender diverse individuals in social science research.
  • Critically analyzed the Sullivan Review's framework and recommendations.
  • Explored the broader context of trans rights in the UK.
  • Discussed the implications for ethical review processes in research.
  • The Review promotes a binary view of biological sex, marginalizing trans identities.
  • It calls for possible removal of ethical review processes, risking the rights of trans individuals.
  • The intervention highlights broader worries about critical inquiry in social sciences being compromised.

Abstract

ABSTRACT This intervention argues that the UK Government‐commissioned independent review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender (the ‘Sullivan Review’) implicitly promotes the erasure of trans and gender diverse people from research and data collection protocols and carries worrying implications for the inclusion of trans people within UK institutions and for critical social science research. Set in a context where trans and gender diverse people's rights are being rolled back in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the Review attempts to install a singular model of binary, immutable, ‘biological’ sex as incontrovertible across data gathering on sex and gender across public bodies including government, universities, the health service and research organisations. It does so via appeals to science and to ‘clarity’, and by proposing to limit or even in certain cases remove default ethical review processes. The intervention argues that the Review can be situated within broader attempts to erase critical inquiry into the complex, intersectional production of social categories including sex, gender and sexuality, as well as inquiries that extend what ethical principles and governance involve. In sum, we contend that the Review carries deleterious consequences for geography and other social scientific disciplines and call upon scholars to refuse its vision and implications.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Todd et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6984343ff1d9ada3c1fb22achttps://doi.org/10.1111/tran.70057
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper