Sign in

Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️

@jaytoddgla.bsky.social
416 followers 265 following 164 posts

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

PostsRepliesMedia
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 12/06/2026
Also the People’s Princess x
030
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
Thread- Has there been a 'loss of data on sex', as the Sullivan Review argues? @kevinguyan.bsky.social's work unpicks this. Guyan notes: for Sullivan, ‘sex’ data only counts when trans people are *forced* to record sex aligned with what was assigned at birth. doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2025.2611975
2193
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
Read more in the third section of our piece that critically responds to the Sullivan Review. doi.org/10.1111/tran.70057
Text that reads - 3 Promotion of Trans Erasure as Clarity, and Deviation From Ethical Principles
020
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
In our article, we argue that the Sullivan Review deviates from well-established ethical standards, contending that it dismisses the role of lived and embodied experience in research design and discounts participant dignity, rights, safety, and wellbeing. doi.org/10.1111/tran.70057
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.).
130
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
The Sullivan Review & Ethics: A Thread A key problematic of the Review is its significant consequences for ethical principles/governance. Its 2nd report recommends universities consider ‘paring back the scope and power of ethics committees’ in varied ways Read them below doi.org/10.1111/tran.70057
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.Text from the Sullivan Review report 2 that reads - . Ethics committees must ensure that ethical review does not lead to
onerous delays, in particular in the case of time-sensitive research. By
default, ethics committees should approve research proposals and should
do so promptly.
e. Ethical review is continually expanding, for example to cover
undergraduate students, and to cover secondary data analysis. This
expansion should be halted.
f. Ethics committees must explicitly distinguish between ethical risk and
reputational risk, and not conflate the two. Reputational risk should never
be treated as an ethical consideration, let alone a reason to treat a
proposal as ‘high risk’ by an ethics committee.
g. The centralisation of ethics committees should be reconsidered.
Paradoxically, review by a centralised committee can lead to projects
deemed ‘high risk’ being judged by academics lacking in relevant
expertise, whereas ‘low risk’ projects are more likely to be judged by
disciplinary peers.
h. ESRC should review its guidance for research organisations and research
ethics committees with a view to reducing the burden on research
organisations, reducing risks to academic freedom, and acknowledging
the risk of politicisation of ethics processes. Guidance should highlight the
value of academic freedom as a value which underpins the ability of
researchers to deliver knowledge as a public good which benefits society
as a whole. The risk that research ethics committees may prevent
valuable research from being carried out in a timely way should be noted.
ESRC should engage with academic experts on research ethics and
ensure transparency in the process of reviewing its guidance.
1133
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 03/02/2026
Really pleased to see our response (Felicity Callard) to the 'Sullivan Review' covered in LGBTQ+ media by Attitude Magazine! UK Government review on sex and gender slammed by professionals for wrongly portraying trans identities
1264
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 03/02/2026
In our response to the Sullivan Review, we set out more about its potential harms and the consequences it carries for discrediting trans existence and trans lives, facilitating damaging practices of knowledge-making, and undermining ethical research. rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
130
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 03/02/2026
We argue that the Sullivan Review's recommendation of 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. rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
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.
141
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 03/02/2026
Concerningly, the Sullivan Review's second report carries consequences for ethical research conduct, including by recommending 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 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.
121
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 03/02/2026
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. rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
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.
131
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 03/02/2026
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. rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
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.
2888
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 03/02/2026
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'. rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
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'.
2776
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 03/02/2026
📣 Today @felicitycallard.bsky.social and I have published the first peer-reviewed response to the 'Sullivan Review' of research and data on sex and gender. doi.org/10.1111/tran... The Review could threaten trans rights and inclusion, erode academic freedom, and undermine research quality.
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.'
9384193
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 13/06/2025
Mine is quite pitiful *looks at Wales*
010
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 27/04/2025
Sick placards
020
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 27/04/2025
Incredible turnout for the rally in defence of trans rights in beautiful Newcastle!
171
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 25/04/2025
010
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 25/04/2025
Adult human chicken is still the only positive contribution gender conservatives have made to my life
1146