UK Government review on sex and gender slammed by professionals for wrongly portraying trans identities
"We are calling upon researchers across the UK to reject the recommendations of the Sullivan Review," says Dr Jay Todd
By Aaron Sugg
Researchers have warned that the UK Government’s review on sex and gender risks harming science and may “undermine” studies relating to trans identities.
The controversy follows the publication of the “Independent review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender”, issued in March 2025 and conducted by Professor Alice Sullivan, who has links to the gender-critical group Sex Matters.
Professor Sullivan concluded in the review that sex is fixed and that gender terminology should be avoided in research.
The Sullivan review states:
* “Sex” is “constant across time”
* “Legal sex” is “subject to change”
* The word “‘gender’ should be avoided”
* “Questions which combine sex and gender identity in one question should not be asked”
The Labour Government, under Keir Starmer, welcomed the review, followed by an April Supreme Court verdict, ruling that the term ‘woman’ in UK law refers only to ‘biological women’.
However, concerns have since been raised that Sullivan’s conclusions may have been “biased” due to her role with Sex Matters, which opposes certain transgender rights.
“[The Sullivan review] wrongly portrays trans and gender diverse people’s self-determination of sex and gender” – Professor Felicity Callard and Dr Jay Todd
A peer-reviewed rebuttal study was published today (3 February 2026) by Professor Felicity Callard and Dr Jay Todd, arguing against the review’s conclusions.
They stated that the Sullivan Review “wrongly portrays trans and gender diverse people’s self-determination of sex and gender as incompatible with scientific truth and legitimacy”.
Dr Todd, of the University of Glasgow’s School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, criticised health secretary Wes Streeting for welcoming the review.
“We strongly disagree” – Dr Todd criticising health secretary Wes Streeting for welcoming the gender critical review
“The UK Government’s health secretary Wes Streeting MP has claimed that the Sullivan Review ‘will lead to better, more inclusive and fairer outcomes for everyone, including the trans community’. We strongly disagree,” he 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,” he added. “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.”
Dr Jay Todd warned of wider political and academic consequences, stating: “If the Sullivan Review’s recommendations are accepted and normalised, they could contribute to a wider rollback of trans inclusion and of the rights of marginalised people more broadly, and undermine critical scholarship internationally.”
“We can find no evidence trans or gender diverse people were involved” – Callard on the Sullivan review
The University of Glasgow academics also warned of harm to clinical research, stating that the review’s recommendations could damage research quality by excluding people who do not fit within a strict binary.
They argued that Sullivan’s recommendation to avoid acknowledging sex or gender beyond a birth-assigned binary “entrenches its focus on trans exclusion”.
Professor Felicity Callard said there was no evidence of trans inclusion in the review process, stating: “We can find no evidence trans or gender diverse people were involved in the review’s design, analysis, or writing.”
“We are calling upon researchers across the UK to reject the recommendations of the Sullivan Review” – Dr Todd urging professionals against the sex and gender review
She added that the review “uses what we see as dehumanising language… by referring to trans women as ‘males who identify as women’”, and warned that this approach “could miscategorise both trans and cisgender people”.
The review would require the NHS to ask trans men and women not whether they identify as male or female, but whether they have “the protected characteristic of gender reassignment”, “trans identification”, and or “identification as trans and/or gender diverse”.
Dr Todd called for action to counter Sullivan’s research: “We are calling upon researchers across the UK to reject the recommendations of the Sullivan Review and push back on the possibility of their implementation by government and our public institutions.”
The Sullivan review is available to read on the official UK government website.
Get more from Attitude
