Felicity Callard
LightNews LightNews
banner
felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard
@felicitycallard.bsky.social
2.4K followers 1.5K following 840 posts

Geographies & histories of what we have come to call “mental health” | the university | daydreams & fantasies | Freud | Marx

Editor, History of the Human Sciences @histhum.bsky.social

Videos
Psychology 36%
Philosophy 17%
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 8d
I wrote on psychic life and Palestinian resistance

– to ensure more people read Abdaljawad Omar @hamayel.bsky.social.

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
For the Palestinian people, psychic life is just as much a site of struggle for liberation as social life. Palestinians are persistently refused psychological amplitude, characteristics easily granted to those who are never worried they might fall out of what is constituted as the category of the human. Abdaljawad Omar’s writings in English published since October 7, 2023 (as well as writings by other Palestinians, other Arabs, and those of Palestinian descent) offer means of understanding material resistance in relation to the terrain of the psyche. Omar offers distinctive accounts of mourning, loss, and ruins, as well as of how settler colonialism reorganizes experiences of time and relations between past, present, and future. The article reads Omar’s writings against other accounts of mourning and of psychic phenomena that are indebted to psychoanalysis. Omar’s analyses of Palestinians’ resistance to unfreedom and annihilation open up other ways of understanding the psychic vicissitudes of those who suffer, grieve, and struggle to exit a colonial condition characterized by the colonizer’s repeated attempts to break psychic worlds as well as erase bodily life. Understandings of psychic life that do justice to how Palestine is redrawing the world are central to the work of ‘cracking history open’.

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 19h
*Thank you* for this special issue, Eman

Reposted by Felicity Callard, Sarah Brouillette

andyhines.bsky.social
andy hines @andyhines.bsky.social · 23h
I'm in the new look @publicbooks.bsky.social talking with @anniemcc.bsky.social, Vineeta Singh, Dan Nemser, and Rana Jaleel about higher education, how we have studied and organized around it, and what possibility lies therein.
Defending the Possibility of the University: A Roundtable on “University Keywords” - Public Books
“What would it look like for faculty unions and graduate student unions to collaborate or work together with K-12 teachers’ unions to push back against anti-DEI legislation or book bans?”
www.publicbooks.org

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
Jay (first author of our Sullivan Review paper) in their thread discusses one of the lesser known parts of the Review:

its offensive against established principles surrounding ethical review, research governance, and community involvement

rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
jaytoddgla.bsky.social Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 1d
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.

Reposted by Felicity Callard

jaytoddgla.bsky.social
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 1d
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.

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
yes: I read it a year or so ago having previously prevaricated. Read most it before during and after visiting Mann family house on the extraordinary Curonian spit in Lithuania

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
‘Naila Ahmed, head of campaigns at advocacy group CAGE, said: “This acquittal is a huge victory for the movement but [sic] nationally & abroad who campaigned on behalf of the defendants, & a powerful affirmation of jury independence and moral courage in the face of extraordinary political pressure’
scotnational.bsky.social The National @scotnational.bsky.social · 1d
Six Palestine Action activists have declared victory after being cleared of committing aggravated burglary over a break-in at an Israel-based defence firm’s UK site
Activists celebrate victory as all 6 cleared in Israeli arms factory trial
www.thenational.scot

Reposted by Alison Phipps, Felicity Callard

scotnational.bsky.social
The National @scotnational.bsky.social · 1d
Six Palestine Action activists have declared victory after being cleared of committing aggravated burglary over a break-in at an Israel-based defence firm’s UK site
Activists celebrate victory as all 6 cleared in Israeli arms factory trial
www.thenational.scot

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
My friend told me yesterday that the mother of this student is the chief arts critic of the Observer. I checked out her (the mother’s) recent posts on X and they are full of “gender critical” [I always put that phrase in quotation marks] RTs
Thea Sewell One of the world's best universities has been captured by trans-obsessed zealots Students ostracised me at Cambridge for believing in the reality of biological sex Thea Sewell (centre) co-founded the Cambridge University Society of Women with friends Maeve Halligan (left) and Serena Worley after being hounded for her views about sex and gender Credit: John Lawrence

Reposted by Lesley A. Hall, Felicity Callard

eicathomefinn.bsky.social
Margot Finn @eicathomefinn.bsky.social · 1d
'Sasha Roseneil, the University of Sussex’s vice-chancellor, criticised the investigation at the time, arguing that the OfS had ignored or turned down nine requests by the university to meet with investigators, despite taking lengthy statements from Stock.'

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
An excellent piece on how “clarity” is deployed in conservative projects more broadly and transphobic politics more specifically. Thank you @nicoleteburbach.bsky.social
nicoleteburbach.bsky.social Nicolete Burbach @nicoleteburbach.bsky.social · 1d
I did a blog article on this kind of use of "clarity" a while back, and I still think it's one of the most insightful things I've written www.newwaysministry.org/2025/04/11/c...

Reposted by Felicity Callard

nicoleteburbach.bsky.social
Nicolete Burbach @nicoleteburbach.bsky.social · 1d
I did a blog article on this kind of use of "clarity" a while back, and I still think it's one of the most insightful things I've written www.newwaysministry.org/2025/04/11/c...

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
The stakes surrounding the “Sullivan Review” are high, @jaytoddgla.bsky.social and I argue in @tibg.bsky.social

rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
4 Conclusions: Beware of Calls for Clarity The stakes surrounding the 'Sullivan Review' are high given the worsening eliminationist movement against trans and gender diverse people in the United Kingdom and internationally (e.g., Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention 2023, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c). The Review adds ballast to attempts to embed a certain conception of biological sex and to separate sex and gender, which it presents as unquestionable science and 'ordinary mainstream views' (SR2, 32). It (re)installs ideologically driven models of sex and a hygienically patrolled division between 'sex' and 'gender', where a certain model of sex is 'reality', and 'gender identity' is cast merely as an individual's (psychological) 'self-understanding'—a model that research across disciplines has done much to dislodge (Hemmings 2022; Sothern and Dyck 2009). How the Review does so undermines and discredits critical scholarship that researches the intersectional complexity and instability of social categories.

Reposted by John Drury, Martin Paul Eve, Lesley A. Hall , and 2 more

resprofnews.bsky.social
Research Professional News @resprofnews.bsky.social · 1d
OfS urges High Court to dismiss university’s challenge on £585k fine.

Judicial review into fine imposed for free speech breaches at University of Sussex running for three days.

www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-u...
OfS urges High Court to dismiss university’s challenge on £585k fine - Research Professional News
Judicial review into fine imposed for free speech breaches at University of Sussex running for three days
www.researchprofessionalnews.com

Reposted by John Hogan, Katherine Brickell

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
If you were interested in @jaytoddgla.bsky.social’s and my critical response to the “Sullivan Review” yesterday, make sure you read @kevinguyan.bsky.social’s very recently published “Trans-exclusionary data activism in the UK”
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
Trans-exclusionary data activism in the UK
In the UK, the design and management of sex and gender categories in data – including census questions, police and health records, and digital ID – has become a key focus of trans-exclusionary acti...
www.tandfonline.com

Reposted by Catherine J. Frieman

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
We would love for @jaytoddgla.bsky.social’s and my critical response to be read widely, given the Sullivan Review’s potential for far-reaching implications across the social and health sciences — and indeed well beyond the academy
tibg.bsky.social TIBG @tibg.bsky.social · 2d
New Intervention in TIBG:

'A critical response to the UK's "Sullivan Review" into sex and gender in research and data' by @jaytoddgla.bsky.social & @felicitycallard.bsky.social

doi.org/10.1111/tran...
Screenshot of an intervention abstract in Transactions by Jay JD Todd & Felicity Callard (2026) entitled: 'A Critical Response to the UK's ‘Sullivan Review’ Into Sex and Gender in Research and Data' with a red banner at the top. 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.

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 1d
Many university researchers (& many social scientists) have no idea that the 'Sullivan Review' (named after its lead author, sociologist Sullivan) exists nor of its potential potency.

@jaytoddgla.bsky.social and I wanted to set the Review in context

rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
In selecting Sullivan, the commissioners chose an advisory group member of Sex Matters, which understands sex as binary, ‘real, immutable and important’ (what it calls ‘objective reality’) and claims, in contrast, ‘gender identity’ as a determination of whether ‘someone is male or female (or both or neither)’ is merely a ‘strongly held and erroneous personal feeling’ (Sex Matters 2024). Prior to selection, Sullivan had made clear she disagreed with research not conceptualising sex as binary and immutable (e.g., Sullivan 2020). While SR1 does not use the phrase ‘gender critical’ to describe its framework, it is allied—through its lead author, terminologies and recommendations—with those self-identifying as ‘gender critical’ feminists. It includes, for example, terms such as ‘adult human female’ (SR1, 11, 43) which some scholars have recognised as an ‘anti-transgender dogwhistle’ (Duffy 2025). ‘Gender critical’ feminism has been analysed by other feminist and queer scholars as part of a broader anti-gender movement (Butler 2025), gender conservatism (S. Ahmed 2021) and a manifestation of ‘postfascist feminism’ (Bassi and LaFleur 2022).2 These scholars have demonstrated that this movement's arguments are, as in Bassi and LaFleur's (2022, 317) words, ‘genealogically coherent with multiple conservative moral panics and resilient fascist tropes’. Meanwhile, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention (2025a, n.p.) has stated that ‘the beliefs held by the gender critical movement overlap significantly with those held by various authoritarian governments and fascist political parties the world over’.

Reposted by Felicity Callard

notrightruth.bsky.social
Ruth Pearce @notrightruth.bsky.social · 2d
I'm glad Dr Todd and Prof Callard remind us right at the start of their article that the Sullivan Review was commissioned as part of the Conservative Party's "Kicking Woke Ideology Out of Science" programme. A strong and stable grounding for policy-based evidence-making.
Badly-designed poster featuring the slogans "Long term decisions for a brighter future", and "Kicking woke ideology out of science". There are also some swirling red, white, and blue ribbons, and some jars with colourful liquids.

Reposted by Katharine Hayhoe, Daniela Gabor, Caroline Krafft , and 5 more

jackmirkinson.bsky.social
Jack Mirkinson @jackmirkinson.bsky.social · 2d
Media coverage of Gaza has plummeted. So today on @thenation.com, we're doing something pretty special: we're only running pieces by people in and from Gaza.

We're calling it "A Day for Gaza." You can find links to all of the incredible pieces here. Please read! www.thenation.com/article/worl...
A Day for Gaza
Today, The Nation is turning over its website exclusively to stories from Gaza and its people. This is why.
www.thenation.com

Reposted by Felicity Callard

tibg.bsky.social
TIBG @tibg.bsky.social · 2d
New Intervention in TIBG:

'A critical response to the UK's "Sullivan Review" into sex and gender in research and data' by @jaytoddgla.bsky.social & @felicitycallard.bsky.social

doi.org/10.1111/tran...
Screenshot of an intervention abstract in Transactions by Jay JD Todd & Felicity Callard (2026) entitled: 'A Critical Response to the UK's ‘Sullivan Review’ Into Sex and Gender in Research and Data' with a red banner at the top. 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.

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 2d
Wasn't necessarily expecting to get our research covered in Attitude Mag but I'm so glad @attitudemag.bsky.social has:

"We are calling upon researchers across the UK to reject the recommendations of the Sullivan Review," says Dr Jay Todd @jaytoddgla.bsky.social"
www.attitude.co.uk/news/uk-gove...
UK Government review on sex and gender slammed by professionals for wrongly portraying trans identities
Researchers have warned that the UK Government’s review on sex and gender risks harming studies relating to trans identities.
www.attitude.co.uk

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 2d
Thank you for posting about our paper @paisleycurrah.com. Your writings have been central to our thinking through our critique of the Sullivan Review.

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 2d
For US-based friends: Jay's @jaytoddgla.bsky.social & my critical response to UK 'Sullivan Review' shows its international reach:

Already used by Trump administration to secure commitment to 'sex-based language' & excise 'gender' & 'gender identity' rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
SR1 is already having impact internationally. For example, it is cited authoritatively in Trump administration reports, including on ‘Pediatric Gender Dysphoria’, which moves against gender-affirming care for transgender children. There, SR1 bolsters that report's excision of the terms ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ and its commitment to biological, ‘sex-based language’ (US Department of Health and Human Services 2025, 39-40). SR1, we argue, must be seen as contributing to reactionary interventions that erase the realities and constrict the socio-spatial worlds of trans adults and children (Gill-Peterson 2018).

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 2d
U Glasgow has covered Jay Todd's @jaytoddgla.bsky.social & my critical paper on the 'Sullivan Review' rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

Many social scientists whom Jay & I talk to are (still) unaware of the Sullivan Review and its potential implications. Our paper aims to change this
uofgnews.bsky.social UofGNews @uofgnews.bsky.social · 2d
Recommendations from the Sullivan Review could undermine the quality of public institutions’ research, erode academic freedom, and threaten the rights of trans and gender diverse people if widely adopted, @uofgges.bsky.social researchers have warned.

Read more here: www.gla.ac.uk/news/headlin...

Reposted by Felicity Callard

uofgnews.bsky.social
UofGNews @uofgnews.bsky.social · 2d
Recommendations from the Sullivan Review could undermine the quality of public institutions’ research, erode academic freedom, and threaten the rights of trans and gender diverse people if widely adopted, @uofgges.bsky.social researchers have warned.

Read more here: www.gla.ac.uk/news/headlin...

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 2d
I never post a link to the THE but the THE has covered Jay Todd's @jaytoddgla.bsky.social and my paper with the headline, 'Trans research "at risk" if data collection guidance adopted'

rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Trans research ‘at risk’ if data collection guidance adopted Response to Sullivan Review argues recommendations could hit quality of findings and impinge on academic freedom Published on February 3, 2026 Last updated February 3, 2026 Patrick Jack Twitter: @paddywjack 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.

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 2d
(Ended up serendipitously publishing 2 things very important to me almost simultaneously – one on Palestinian resistance, and one in the service of trans liberation – and I can almost feel the anxious brush of moving fingers too worried to press a like button on either)

Reposted by John Hogan

felicitycallard.bsky.social
Felicity Callard @felicitycallard.bsky.social · 2d
Jay Todd @jaytoddgla.bsky.social and I have published today in @tibg.bsky.social a critical response to the UK Government-commissioned "Sullivan Review" of sex and gender in data and research collection

rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
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.

Reposted by Steven French, Catherine Baker, Malcolm MacLean , and 2 more

jaytoddgla.bsky.social
Jay Todd 🏳️‍⚧️ @jaytoddgla.bsky.social · 2d
📣 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.'

Reposted by Felicity Callard

scotnational.bsky.social
The National @scotnational.bsky.social · 2d
NEW: A UK Government review on sex and gender could 'undermine' scientific research and 'erode academic freedom', researchers have warned
UK Government sex and gender review 'harmful to scientific research', study warns
www.thenational.scot

Reposted by Felicity Callard

kevinguyan.bsky.social
Dr Kevin Guyan @kevinguyan.bsky.social · 2d
📢 New peer-reviewed academic response to the Sullivan Review into sex and gender in research and data.

@jaytoddgla.bsky.social and @felicitycallard.bsky.social have published a critical response to the Sullivan Review.

doi.org/10.1111/tran...
Screen grab of front page for article: A Critical Response to the UK's ‘Sullivan Review’ Into Sex and Gender in Research and Data