Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️

@jaytoddgla.bsky.social

411 Followers 266 Following

Non-binary researcher of trans lives in the UK. Human geographer. ABBA devotee. Geordie in Glasgow. they/them https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/ges/staff/jaytodd/

Text that reads - 3 Promotion of Trans Erasure as Clarity, and Deviation From Ethical Principles
Text that reads - Such notions of ‘ethics’ and ‘clarity’ dismiss lived and embodied experience in research design and deviate from well-established ethical standards. There will be cases where referring to someone as ‘male’ or ‘female’ against their will or knowledge, including when reporting findings on gender or sex at individual and aggregate levels, would constitute misgendering and undermine participant autonomy. This would, we argue, contravene ethical guidance of bodies such as the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which states the primary role of Research Ethics Committees is to ‘ensure that the research will respect the dignity, rights, welfare and, where possible, the autonomy of participants and all parties involved in and potentially affected by the research’ (UKRI: ESRC 2025), and the UK Research Integrity Office principle that the ‘dignity, rights, safety, and wellbeing of participants must be the primary consideration in any research study’ (Parry et al. 2025, 15). Indeed, SR2 (17) explicitly calls for the ESRC to review its ethical guidance, including by acknowledging ‘the risk of politicisation of ethics processes’, a risk which it implicitly regards itself as outside of. SR1 (3) argues that ‘the purpose of survey data collection is to gather data about populations rather than to provide an opportunity for each individual to express the full complexity and richness of their identity’. While we acknowledge that no survey could capture such richness, this statement, taken alongside SR1's data categorisation and university ethics reform recommendations, risks deviating from the ESRC's principle that ‘[t]he rights and dignity of individuals and groups should be respected’ (UKRI: ESRC 2025, n.p.).
Text from Sullivan Review Report 2 that reads - 13. The expansion and politicisation of ethics committees poses serious risks to research, including research on sex and gender, potentially affecting researchers working from any perspective on this issue. To address this: a. The terms of reference of ethics committees should state that it is not within their remit to prevent researchers from using the concept of sex, collecting data on sex, or using sex-based language. b. Ethics committees should not refer researchers to ask advice from EDI committees. c. Universities should consider paring back the scope and power of ethics committees, including removing the requirement for low-risk research which does not involve any medical or other experimental intervention or contact with children or vulnerable populations or genuine risk of harm to research participants or researchers or potentially unlawful acts to undergo formal ethical review by default.
setting a compulsory and binary standard for collecting data on sex and gender would contravene researchers' academic freedom and their obligation to prioritise participant rights and autonomy.
The Sullivan Review recommends that universities consider 'paring back the scope and power' of ethics committees in various ways. It advocates for removing ethical oversight from some university research.
The Sullivan Review discounts decades of research across myriad disciplines, including across the social sciences, which has demonstrated that both sex and gender are socially as well as biologically produced.
Text - We find that the Sullivan Review's recommendations could have huge, negative consequences for how trans and gender diverse people are represented across public bodies like government, universities, and the NHS.
Graphic text - The Sullivan Review recommends that research should use a single, binary model of 'biological' sex at birth, and portrays trans and gender diverse people's self-determination of their sex and gender as incompatible with scientific truth and 'clarity'.
Graphic reading 'the UK Government-commissioned 'Sullivan Review' of sex and gender in data and research collection threatens British research and trans inclusion. Here's why.'