The UK is currently sweltering through the hottest June on record. The Met Office has issued a “red warning” for much of England and Wales, highlighting an active danger to life. Trains have been cancelled, roads are melting, and we will likely see more deaths in coming days. Yet the media is talking little about climate change. Instead, one of the big stories of the week is that businesses and unions are uniting in opposition to the proposed appointment of Ed Milliband as Chancellor of the Exchequer, due to the belief that he is too committed to “net zero” emission targets.

How did we get here? And why are trans people once again to blame?

I have a new short article out in the International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. It is co-authored with a range of international colleagues, variously originating from and/or based in Australia, Canada, Chile, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the USA, as well as the UK. You can read it here:

Official, paywalled version (typeset and hosted by the publisher, University of Toronto Press)
Misuse of Evidence in Sex and Gender Policy

“Accepted” version (free access)
Misuse of Evidence in Sex and Gender Policy

In the article, we examine how evidence is being misused in debates and policy relating to sex and gender. Our authorship team holds expertise in a range of topics and disciplines, including figures such as clinical psychologist Dr Tomás Ojeda, neuroscientist Dr Dori Grijseels, criminologist Professor Sarah Lamble, and the sociologist and former Olympic athlete Dr Madeleine Pape (to name just a few!) We met at last year’s workshop on sex and gender policy at the University of Lausanne, and have been collaborating ever since.

Drawing on examples such as the UK’s Cass Review and Sullivan Review, US state hearings, and the global exclusion of trans women from sports competitions, we collectively identify five common pitfalls in the use of evidence:

• presenting “expert” opinion as authoritative
• excluding relevant expertise, especially from trans people
• discrediting scientific consensus
• setting unattainable standards
• deploying decontextualized claims
• positioning disinformation as science

We focus especially on how this misuse of evidence in sex and gender policy is causing direct harm to trans people. However, we also note the dangers for other contexts. Given the typical misogyny of anti-trans discourse, this of course includes all women, plus intersex people.

We further highlight how the strategies developed for undermining and misusing evidence in sex and gender policy can also inform a more general distrust of scientific endeavour. In the USA, this can be seen in the mass defunding of scientific programmes and institutions, which we note in the article. Here in the UK, examples include widespread disinformation about immigration, which is being used both to fuel and excuse racist policies and fascist riots… and of course, also public attitudes and policies on climate change.

I hope our new article will be a helpful tool for people wishing to identify and understand how evidence is misused and ideology prioritised – in sex and gender policy of course, but also in wider public debates.

Did you appreciate this post? Want to read more?

Subscribe now to receive new posts for free whenever I write them.