Rob Mullins
@robertmullins.bsky.social
Associate Professor, University of Queensland.
This is Lord Reed writing in 2001. Similar evidence was given to the ECtHR in Goodwin. Croft v Royal Mail was decided in 2003. You are rewriting history here. What toilets do you think April Ashley used?
January 28, 2026 at 10:01 AM
This is Lord Reed writing in 2001. Similar evidence was given to the ECtHR in Goodwin. Croft v Royal Mail was decided in 2003. You are rewriting history here. What toilets do you think April Ashley used?
I found this today (in Lord Pannick's book on sex discrimination).
January 22, 2026 at 8:11 AM
I found this today (in Lord Pannick's book on sex discrimination).
This piece about Bari Weiss university is really cheering me up. There's something darkly funny about the natural lawyers and Straussians ruining it for everyone.
January 16, 2026 at 10:20 PM
This piece about Bari Weiss university is really cheering me up. There's something darkly funny about the natural lawyers and Straussians ruining it for everyone.
2/ I am still surprised that the Court was so complacent on this point, and the existence of intersex people really does complicate several of the claims they make in the judgment.
January 13, 2026 at 5:52 AM
2/ I am still surprised that the Court was so complacent on this point, and the existence of intersex people really does complicate several of the claims they make in the judgment.
Check you're in the right room! My brother once went viral in similar circumstances.
January 7, 2026 at 9:53 AM
Check you're in the right room! My brother once went viral in similar circumstances.
I think Mary-Ann Stephenson and those who agree with her should think more carefully about what a meaningful right to marry in your acquired sex might look like.
January 1, 2026 at 10:28 PM
I think Mary-Ann Stephenson and those who agree with her should think more carefully about what a meaningful right to marry in your acquired sex might look like.
Setting the main points aside, I just want to note that the best alternative to "self-id" was disparaged by the appellants (and the Supreme Court) in FWS as "certificated sex" and implied to be meaningless. Why would anyone bother with anything other than self-id now?
December 28, 2025 at 7:53 AM
Setting the main points aside, I just want to note that the best alternative to "self-id" was disparaged by the appellants (and the Supreme Court) in FWS as "certificated sex" and implied to be meaningless. Why would anyone bother with anything other than self-id now?
It's really interesting to go back and read the Times's coverage of the Peggie case from the middle of the year. If you were trying to actually understand the legal dispute you'd have been very poorly served. archive.md/2025.07.13-0...
December 20, 2025 at 10:20 AM
It's really interesting to go back and read the Times's coverage of the Peggie case from the middle of the year. If you were trying to actually understand the legal dispute you'd have been very poorly served. archive.md/2025.07.13-0...
Content warning, but I hadn't realized that some of these people had talked themselves into "domperidone is a dangerous experimental drug" territory. Completely cooked.
December 17, 2025 at 10:58 PM
Content warning, but I hadn't realized that some of these people had talked themselves into "domperidone is a dangerous experimental drug" territory. Completely cooked.
Yeah. I tried to write about this in my paper. The judges avoided section 7 almost entirely, and it's very important! You can't read s 7 in alienation from the provisions dealing with sex/gender. You have put it very well.
December 14, 2025 at 11:22 PM
Yeah. I tried to write about this in my paper. The judges avoided section 7 almost entirely, and it's very important! You can't read s 7 in alienation from the provisions dealing with sex/gender. You have put it very well.
Cass and a co-author have a really telling passage in a recent article where they draw an analogy between cigarette sales and puberty blockers! It's wild.
December 8, 2025 at 1:20 AM
Cass and a co-author have a really telling passage in a recent article where they draw an analogy between cigarette sales and puberty blockers! It's wild.
See I took him to be subtly (and effectively, for a non educated audience) pushing back. (He's definitely reverting to a more old fashioned kind of "biological brain sex" argument.)
December 5, 2025 at 7:45 PM
See I took him to be subtly (and effectively, for a non educated audience) pushing back. (He's definitely reverting to a more old fashioned kind of "biological brain sex" argument.)
He is saying we need sex segregation but that trans women should compete in their acquired sex. (Elsewhere he's quite clear about the fact that acquired sex just = sex.)
December 4, 2025 at 11:49 PM
He is saying we need sex segregation but that trans women should compete in their acquired sex. (Elsewhere he's quite clear about the fact that acquired sex just = sex.)
I've seen a lot of people say similar things do this over the past few months and it really annoys me. The following can both be true at the same time: (1) The Equality Act needs to be amended post FWS and (2) the interpretation of the Act reflected in the draft code of practice is wrong in law.
December 1, 2025 at 9:47 AM
I've seen a lot of people say similar things do this over the past few months and it really annoys me. The following can both be true at the same time: (1) The Equality Act needs to be amended post FWS and (2) the interpretation of the Act reflected in the draft code of practice is wrong in law.
I agree! I tried to write about this.
November 19, 2025 at 10:42 PM
I agree! I tried to write about this.
This reminds me of a little theory I've been working on. The haircut theory of fascism.
November 17, 2025 at 2:52 AM
This reminds me of a little theory I've been working on. The haircut theory of fascism.
With apologies to those of you who already have had to wade through my draft on FWS, I think this quote from Lord Fraser in Mandela v Dowell Lee (on a biological approach to defining “ethnic origins”) should have served as a warning to the court.
November 4, 2025 at 10:40 AM
With apologies to those of you who already have had to wade through my draft on FWS, I think this quote from Lord Fraser in Mandela v Dowell Lee (on a biological approach to defining “ethnic origins”) should have served as a warning to the court.
He has a reputation in Australia too.
November 3, 2025 at 10:24 AM
He has a reputation in Australia too.
I've deleted a previous post about this, which appears to show a KC deadnaming a witness because (i) it repeated the deadname and (ii) I'm not sure whether the KC deadnamed her or the poster did. Apologies to those of you who interacted with it.
October 31, 2025 at 10:33 AM
I've deleted a previous post about this, which appears to show a KC deadnaming a witness because (i) it repeated the deadname and (ii) I'm not sure whether the KC deadnamed her or the poster did. Apologies to those of you who interacted with it.
Barristers get put in a similar position when they are told to aggressively/intrusively question sexual assault victims. But there is increased awareness that isn't always appropriate. The KC in question knows this.
October 31, 2025 at 9:32 AM
Barristers get put in a similar position when they are told to aggressively/intrusively question sexual assault victims. But there is increased awareness that isn't always appropriate. The KC in question knows this.
The FA’s interpretation of biological sex in FWS is different from the interpretation I would have made. I would have guessed they were invoking the Corbett v Corbett criteria (on which ovaries/testes are not determinative). The Court really should have offered a definition. It is important.
![The revised CUWAFL constitution (the women’s league) now includes the Football Association’s (FA) new policy on trans participation. It states: “Only biological females (i.e., those born with ovaries) may play in open age Matches and Competitions reserved for women.” “A biological female who has begun or has used testosterone as part of gender-related treatment may not compete [...] until four years have passed since their last such use.” If implimented in full, this will ban all taking masculinising HRT within the past four years, and all trans women.
In this constitution, FA restrictions are also noted for men’s teams:
“Only biological males (i.e., those born with testes) may play in open age Matches and Competitions reserved for men.” “A biological female whose gender identity is male or non-binary may compete [...] if they provide a Confirmation Statement… [and] their GP or another qualified medical practitioner” confirm their testosterone levels are “up to the normal adult male range.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:svtyrn534rp7povefiuiltb3/bafkreigk5pcgfbhuxjmtgfaixopik2dt3w6idumh7dmuqyxbdu7jq3zory@jpeg)
October 26, 2025 at 11:17 AM
The FA’s interpretation of biological sex in FWS is different from the interpretation I would have made. I would have guessed they were invoking the Corbett v Corbett criteria (on which ovaries/testes are not determinative). The Court really should have offered a definition. It is important.
E.g. look at this
October 24, 2025 at 8:20 AM
E.g. look at this
It might be in part a relationship to the body (how else do we explain medical transition?) but it doesn't have to be a s certainly isn't exclusively about that.
October 22, 2025 at 11:06 PM
It might be in part a relationship to the body (how else do we explain medical transition?) but it doesn't have to be a s certainly isn't exclusively about that.
Forgive me if someone has discussed this already but this is such a telling passage of FWS. What biological characteristic could a service provider use that would be indissociable from sex?
![Conversely, if a certificated sex reading were adopted, it would have the effect of removing an important aspect of group protection for men and women in the way that direct discrimination under section 13 has been understood to operate. It is well-established that where a policy or rule is applied which applies a criterion that is indissociable from sex in order to determine entitlement to some benefit, that will necessarily constitute unlawful direct discrimination that cannot be justified. A clear example is the policy adopted by the council in James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751 (see p764A per Lord Bridge) regarding free admission to the swimming pool for those of pension age at a time when pension ages for men and women were different. For this principle to apply, there must be an “exact correspondence” between the protected characteristic and the criterion in question (see Preddy v Bull [2013] UKSC 73, [2013] 1 WLR 3741 at para 21 per Lady Hale DPSC). A certificated sex reading of sex in the EA 2010 would have the effect of preventing that principle from applying in relation to a criterion which is indissociable from biological sex (for example, a sex-based biological characteristic) because that criterion would not be indissociable from the more complex grouping that would then constitute members of the relevant “sex” as modified by section 9(1). Instead, the application of such a criterion would fall to be considered as a case of indirect discrimination, with the potential for a justification defence. A certificated sex reading of sex would therefore remove this important aspect of protection in relation to direct discrimination under section 13. It is difficult to see why the GRA 2004 could have intended to remove such protection.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:svtyrn534rp7povefiuiltb3/bafkreigr2nwrgtjgupm6qfydltg52qndduyh5upy53c7a2fwl5lo2vibdy@jpeg)
October 17, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Forgive me if someone has discussed this already but this is such a telling passage of FWS. What biological characteristic could a service provider use that would be indissociable from sex?
E.g. this in The Atlantic, which afaict, is just a straightforward inability to grasp the idea of statistical power.
October 7, 2025 at 5:52 AM
E.g. this in The Atlantic, which afaict, is just a straightforward inability to grasp the idea of statistical power.