Trans research ‘at risk’ if data collection guidance adopted

The recommendations of a review into how sex and gender data is collected could damage the quality of public research and is part of wider efforts to erase trans people from statistics, a new paper has argued.

Published last year, the independent government-commissioned study, led by UCL sociology professor Alice Sullivan, found that inconsistent approaches to how sex is recorded led to a “widespread loss” of data.

In the first peer-reviewed academic response to the report published on 3 February, researchers from the University of Glasgow said that it contributes to “anti-trans discourse” and attempts to criminalise trans existence and remove trans and gender-diverse people from public life.

They said choosing Sullivan allied the review with gender-critical feminism, while its use of terms such as “adult human female” have been described as an “anti-transgender dogwhistle”. Sullivan declined to comment.

The Sullivan Review outlined how the gradual replacement of the word “sex” with “gender” has affected the collection of robust and accurate data on biological sex.

Although it urged scholars to continue collecting data on gender identity, it recommended that future research questions primarily ask respondents about their biological sex at birth.

The new Glasgow paper says that the Sullivan Review incorrectly presents its definition of biological sex as unquestionable science and evidence of “ordinary mainstream views” – but this “rigid binary” would exclude intersex people and those with variations of sex characteristics.

The authors said that this framing discounts decades of social scientific and critical inquiry that has demonstrated that both sex and gender are socially as well as biologically produced. And in doing so, the review “frames trans existence as illegitimate”.

Author Jay Todd, a Leverhulme Research Fellow, said: “The Sullivan Review promotes a harmful approach to research that systematically excludes trans and gender-diverse people at a time when trans communities already face systemic erasure.

“It would reduce the ability of UK researchers to recognise and engage with the people involved in a wide range of studies in a dignified and accurate way.”

The paper warns that viewing trans people’s identities as “merely subjective” constitutes trans erasure that contravenes ethical norms of participant autonomy.

The review’s recommendations could lead to poorer research quality and inappropriate policy decisions, while the compulsory inclusion of “birth sex” could impinge on academic freedom, it adds.

Noting that the Sullivan Review has already been used to “bolster” reports by the Trump administration, the researchers said it was contributing to reactionary interventions across the world.

Author Felicity Callard, professor in human geography, said: “It uses what we see as dehumanising language, including by deploying culture wars about trans participation in sport to make key recommendations and by referring to trans women as ‘males who identify as women’.”

Callard said the recommendation that encourages researchers to record a person’s sex according to their own observation risks miscategorising both trans and cisgender people.

The paper concludes that widespread adoption of the review could contribute to a rollback of trans inclusion and of the rights of marginalised people more broadly and called on researchers to reject its recommendations.