The Sunday Telegraph has interviewed Professor Alice Sullivan, the lead author of the recently published Sullivan Review, which urged public bodies to go back to collecting data on biological sex. In a revelation that may surprise some, the Left-wing academic says she thinks Donald Trump is right when it comes to trans issues, eg, that biological men should not be allowed to compete against biological women in women’s sports.
Sullivan, a professor of sociology and a quantitative data scientist at University College London, was commissioned by the previous Conservative government to investigate how data on biological sex is collected by public bodies after deep concerns were raised about the stranglehold of gender ideology in our key organisations. She was chosen to do the review because of her specialist work on the topic and well-publicised views on the need to record accurate data on sex.
“Sex and gender identity are distinct characteristics and are not interchangeable,” has always been her message. “But unfortunately people in a great many organisations don’t understand data collection as a discipline and have been taking advice from other people who don’t understand it either; the result is a mess. We need – we have a responsibility – to record both sex and gender identity”.
She and her team carried out interviews, collated evidence and heard from whistleblowers too fearful of reprisals to speak out. What they uncovered was shocking; across key organisations like the NHS, schools, the police and civil service, factual information on biological sex has been replaced by subjective (and highly contested) feedback on gender identity since 2015.
As a consequence “robust accurate data” has been lost, the review concluded. Criminals – including sex offenders – are being permitted to choose a self-identified ‘gender’ rather than be identified by their biological sex, and the police and courts are complying. Then there are the schools that immediately change children’s ‘gender’ on IT systems if they self-identify as the opposite sex – often without consulting the parents – and civil servants hounded out for perfectly ordinary opinions on biological sex. It’s absurd. Enter the Sullivan Review. For those longing to turn the tide on aggressive gender politics, this detailed 226-page document has drawn a long-overdue line in the sand.
Maya Forstater, CEO of pressure group Sex Matters welcomed its findings: “This review is devastatingly clear about the harms caused by carelessness with sex data and a decade-long failure of the Civil Service to maintain impartiality and uphold data standards. The destruction of data about sex has caused real harm to individuals and research, and undermined the integrity of policy-making. Conflating sex and gender identity is not a harmless act of kindness but a damaging dereliction of duty.”
Or, as transgender lobbyists TransActual put it on their website; “This review is providing an academic gloss on what is a political call to strip trans people of our hard-won rights to privacy, dignity, and respect in public spaces.”
It’s the sort of binary response that has landed Britain in such a nonsensical quagmire in the first place. Sullivan has, in fact, called on organisations to record gender preference as well as sex when gathering data – but nuance has gone the same way as common sense.
Thankfully cometh the hour cometh the quantitative data scientist in the shape of Prof Alice Sullivan, who is as far from a Gradgrindian number-cruncher as you can imagine. To my mind it all feels terribly bleak. But when we meet, in her corner of north London, where the magnolia trees are in full creamy bloom and the local coffee shop is so vegan I almost cause a riot when I unwittingly ask for “real milk”, Sullivan is in surprisingly high spirits.
“I’m optimistic. I think this review marks a watershed. It has taken a long time but I really do believe we are beyond the point where we can be silenced. It’s the beginning of the end for no debate.”
Wouldn’t that be nice? I can’t help suggesting that Donald Trump of all people may have had a part to play in changing the proverbial mood music surrounding gender issues.
“As a life-long Leftie, it feels uncomfortable to be put in the position of agreeing with Donald Trump. But the fact is that he is simply saying that there are two sexes and that this matters, for example in prisons and sports. If Donald Trump says that the earth is round, should Leftists claim it is flat just to avoid being on the same side as him? This kind of tribal thinking has been horribly damaging to the Left. The idiotic positions that the Democrats took on these issues helped to gift the election to Trump. Mainstream politicians of all stripes need to learn from this that denying observable facts about the world is dangerous.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Highways Act 1980:
137 Penalty for wilful obstruction
(1)If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to [F1imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or] a fine [F2or both].”
I’m not a lawyer, so am I missing something here?
I have also wondered why Joe Public can’t just make citizen arrests? It seems that you can only use those powers for an indictable offence and unforunately, it appears that blocking the highway is a summary offence.
This article explains: https://www.westminstersecurity.co.uk/news/citizens-arrest-uk-law/
The state blob – at its core – agrees with what these JSO morons are saying, even if they don’t agree with the methods. Unless the state stands up and says that oil is good, that we need it and it’s morally wrong to deprive our population of fuel and thus warmth, power and freedom of movement, these evil psychopaths have free reign.
What should happen is that the whole lot of them are tear gassed and dragged off to jail. The police were happy enough to kick the crap out of anti-lockdown protestors with a legitimate issue, but not these human garbage climate religion cultists.
Admirable restraint there Dom which I fully endorse.
Spot on. The state groupthink is one of support for these morons.
I remember 2 or 3 years ago that there was a climate protest in Cardiff and I caught a report on the radio news. They interviewed the Chief Constable – and he said something along the lines of “Whilst many of us will agree with what the protesters are saying…..”
I regret not going online after getting home (at the time) and recording his words for my files – as I found his words really shocking.
I was trying to find confirmation of the above – but failed. However, I did find this comment to an article in Wales Online from 2021 – which I found amusing:
“It is a pity the experts haven’t publicly acknowledged the amount of CO2 and other more serious toxic gases that have been pumped into the atmosphere by the volcano on the Island of La Palma for the last 6 weeks. A natural process that has, around the world, been going on since the formation of Earth.
But there’s no doubt in the minds of the great and the good that this can be easily be offset by me changing out my boiler.”
I think that’s the point of the slow march. If they don’t actually stop they’re not obstructing ‘the free passage along the highway’.
I also am not a lawyer.
It’s a great example of the letter rather than the spirit of the law.
However, by their actions the human garbage are restricting the rights of citizens to go about their lawful business.
Nor am I a lawyer, but surely their activities have the effect that they force the traffic to stop? That’s whole point of their action. The fact that the individual protesters keep moving is irrelevant.
It’s a fine point, and one which would need probably need a lawyer to clarify. My own take on it is that they are obstructing free passage along the highway.
The OED definition of “obstruct” includes: “…prevent or retard progress of” (my emphasis), and they are certainly retarding the progress of the traffic behind them.
Helpful.
They certainly fit my definition of retards.
Out of interest, supposing a group of us joined in amongst them but then unfurled a COVID or vaccine sceptic banner? What a dilemma the police would have then!
I like the idea – but it would be even more fun to raise banners pointing out how crap the idea of net-zero is and backing energy and economic security through fossil fuel investment. Probably have to have lots of cameras about to work out who throws the first punch though.
On further thought the police would probably not arrest a JSO prat for assault/ABH/GBH but arrest me for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
I thought JSO activists were non-violent extremists?
Sure.
Just the same as Antifa.
Never, EVER, act like fascists.
Oh!
Wait….
Now we’re talking.
I like your thinking .. I’m currently reading a book written by a psychoanalyst (Phil Mollon) called ‘Pathologies of the Self: Narcissism and Borderline states of mind”. In it he outlines social and political narcissism (and I’m thinking Just Stop Oil/XR). “An idea, a cause, a slogan, or motif is selected as the basis for identification and idealisation”. The group is then idealised – perhaps for its moral superiority. The “idea” is seen as the solution, perhaps an urgent necessary solution, to complex societal problems. Reality and logic are systematically distorted to fit this delusional simplication of complex issues.” It goes on …. “Once the narcissistic movement has coalesced around its overvalued idea, the group and its members no longer care about the reality of their impact on others – since reality itself has been partly discarded. Members of such a group may not appear delusional because their distorted perceptions and compromised cognition are shared by others. It is the group as a whole that is delusional.”
I could go on but you get the gist of this.
Sounds like a plan
Holding a protest on the Coronation would give their cause greater visibility. Aside from the event itself and all the branded plastic waste it has already generated, there will by an RAF flypast pointlessly burning jet fuel they can highlight as a polluting waste of resources. I look forward to their plucky exploits next weekend where they genuinely take on The Establishment rather than inconvenience those who cannot afford to be on the receiving end of their faux campaign.
Oh, I say. This sort of interruption might even be worth switching the telly box on for. On second thoughts – nah, the trusted news initiative would not allow any broadcasting of interruptions of Chuckles’ ‘do.’
Jet fuel?
Surely the RAF will use the whey from His Majesty’s cheese production?
Just like he uses in his Aston Martin?
Allegedly.
The banners they are holding are made from plastic – which is made from? Plus, going slowly makes cars use more fuel, which they will get from a petrol station. Brainless idiots.
If every driver in the hold up just kept their horns blaring it might drown out both the chants and the BBC’s fawning coverage.
Just Stop Oil…
Their orange banners on which they carry their slogans are plastic…made from oil.
Their fluorescent high viz jackets…made from oil.
Their safety hats are plastic…made from oil.
Their safety glasses are plastic…made from oil.
The glue they use to glue themselves to the road surface…comes from petrochemicals which comes from oil.
The road surfaces they glue themselves to, are made from asphalt…which comes from oil.
The mobile phones and laptops they use to run their social media campaigns, are full of plastic components…which come from oil.
Right now, a world without plastic and oil would be unthinkable. It would push billions of people into abject poverty and starvation. They are so moronically ignorant about the role of oil in the world’s economy and society, to the point where stopping it would mean our entire civilisation would collapse without it. I cannot stand these misinformed idiots. How about we just stop Just Stop Oil?!
“would mean our entire civilisation would collapse…”
Bingo.
That’s the plan.
You will note they don’t try this shit in China, Russia, Iran, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Indonesia, Venezuala etc etc.
And if they did, their fuzz and courts might be just a smidgeon less “understanding”.
And that would be a good thing.
The right to ‘protest’? Absolutely. But how about when the ‘protesters’ are directly supporting the policies of the Uniparty, directly against the citizens?
Bang on.
Hear, hear.
Protesting against lockdowns etc, we did just the same as these JSO protesters (ie march around central London), but the bus/cab/ordinary drivers were extraordinarily patient with, indeed often extremely supportive of, us. And our protests were never reported on by the MSM. (BTW, I am no young rebellious type. I often say that, as an until then law-abiding citizen, I resented being forced to become a rebel in my 70s!)
How bizarre that people don’t just clamour for their own impoverishment. They actually DEMAND IT.
Indeed.