Stop Funding Hate

Open Letter to The Observer re Sullivan Report

By 3 Mins Read
Open Letter to The Observer re Sullivan Report

Summary

Criticism of The Observer's Editorial on Sullivan Report: A reader cancels their subscription to The Observer due to an editorial about the Sullivan Report, which they argue promotes harmful gender-critical views, and TransLucent is also evaluating the report, viewing the gender-critical movement as bordering on a hate group.

Open Letter to The Observer re Sullivan Report.

On the 23rd of March 2025, The Observer published an article reflecting their opinions on the Sullivan Report. It should be noted that Prof Alice Sullivan holds gender-critical views and was appointed by a Conservative Minister, who, like many of her counterparts, was and still is determined to promote a culture war against the trans community, one of the most marginalised and victimised communities in the UK. Prof Sullivan was assisted by others who hold views similar to hers.
TransLucent are currently evaluating the Sullivan Report, and while we accept that not everyone involved in the gender-critical movement is transphobic, it is our view, and that of many others, that the movement itself borders on a hate group. Our report regarding Sullivan will be published in due course.
One of our team members has written a complaint to The Observer. We are happy to publish her letter, as shown below.
To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express my deep concern and dismay regarding your editorial published on 23 March 2025 under the headline: “The Observer view on gender: failure to accurately record biological sex harms us all.” As a lifelong reader of The Guardian and The Observer, I find this editorial profoundly damaging, irresponsible, and deeply out of step with both journalistic ethics and basic human decency.

I began reading The Guardian when I was still at school, when it cost just 11p. I have been a loyal subscriber ever since — I have had the paper delivered to my door, paid for the digital subscription, and installed the app on my phone. I believed in your values. But this editorial has shattered that trust. I have now cancelled my subscription and deleted the app in protest.

The editorial regurgitates harmful dog whistle tropes about puberty blockers, gender-affirming care, and the legitimacy of trans people’s lives. It frames trans inclusion and identity as a threat to broader society under the guise of neutrality and “common sense.” This framing is not only misleading but actively contributes to an already hostile environment for trans people in the UK — a country increasingly described as unsafe for its trans citizens by international observers.

It is deeply troubling that the editorial avoids engaging with evidence-based research or the voices of those affected. Instead, it relies on the same rhetorical strategies frequently employed by known anti-trans commentators — alarmist language, false equivalence, and fear-mongering — all cloaked in institutional authority by presenting this as The Observer’s view. It suggests editorial consensus on an issue that is, in fact, highly contested and has real-world consequences for people like me.

If this piece was authored or influenced by known “gender critical” voices such as Sonia Sodha — a frequent contributor with a record of such views — it should have been disclosed transparently. Editorials must not be used as cover for ideological agendas dressed as neutral commentary.

I am requesting the following:

    • A public clarification or retraction of this editorial, with space given to trans voices in response.
    • Disclosure of who wrote or approved the editorial.
    • A review by your editorial standards board or ombudsman.
    • If no internal resolution is made, I reserve the right to escalate this complaint to IPSO.

Yours sincerely,

Dee

 

Share.

Related Posts

Exit mobile version
Skip to content