Rob Mullins
@robertmullins.bsky.social
Associate Professor, University of Queensland.
Yes--I tried to watch a UK SC judgment hearing recently and it seemed to be geoblocked.
January 23, 2026 at 12:29 PM
Yes--I tried to watch a UK SC judgment hearing recently and it seemed to be geoblocked.
One last point before I drop this is that the Sex Matters types really love Green v Secretary of State for Justice on comparator selection, but that decision sits very awkwardly with W.W. v Poland (as I read it).
January 23, 2026 at 12:26 PM
One last point before I drop this is that the Sex Matters types really love Green v Secretary of State for Justice on comparator selection, but that decision sits very awkwardly with W.W. v Poland (as I read it).
Anyway I am trying to write a paper on this, and I very much need to keep thinking it over. I'm not that wedded to what I'm saying but there are real puzzles here that aren't answered by some facile insistence on a comparator having the same "biological sex".
January 23, 2026 at 12:21 PM
Anyway I am trying to write a paper on this, and I very much need to keep thinking it over. I'm not that wedded to what I'm saying but there are real puzzles here that aren't answered by some facile insistence on a comparator having the same "biological sex".
Right. It has to be that, or else there is no protection from direct discrimination in these cases, which plainly cannot have been the intention.
January 23, 2026 at 12:18 PM
Right. It has to be that, or else there is no protection from direct discrimination in these cases, which plainly cannot have been the intention.
Post FWS we know that "legal sex" is not reassigned, but you should be able to argue for less favourable treatment mutatis mutandis. The sense in which the "biological sex" of the comparator is immaterial is that either choice should get you direct discrimination.
January 23, 2026 at 12:16 PM
Post FWS we know that "legal sex" is not reassigned, but you should be able to argue for less favourable treatment mutatis mutandis. The sense in which the "biological sex" of the comparator is immaterial is that either choice should get you direct discrimination.
in their previous sex they were not excluded or otherwise prevented from accessing facilities that matched their sex and now they are.
January 23, 2026 at 12:12 PM
in their previous sex they were not excluded or otherwise prevented from accessing facilities that matched their sex and now they are.
--i..e. you compare the treatment of person in the sex they were in before they began their transition and the person in their new sex. Ignoring FWS for a second, if you compare the treatment someone received before and after transition then you might argue that
January 23, 2026 at 12:12 PM
--i..e. you compare the treatment of person in the sex they were in before they began their transition and the person in their new sex. Ignoring FWS for a second, if you compare the treatment someone received before and after transition then you might argue that
I think if you look at the authority for comparator selection in HR cases, it's premised on the assumption that the person changes or is in the process of changing sex. The hypothetical comparison then is diachronic and intrapersonal.
January 23, 2026 at 12:12 PM
I think if you look at the authority for comparator selection in HR cases, it's premised on the assumption that the person changes or is in the process of changing sex. The hypothetical comparison then is diachronic and intrapersonal.
I hope nothing horrible has triggered this but good on you. We should all be on here less to be honest.
January 23, 2026 at 9:17 AM
I hope nothing horrible has triggered this but good on you. We should all be on here less to be honest.
My view is that in cases of sex segregation the comparator's sex is immaterial to a claim for GR discrimination, broadly for the reasons stated in Croft.
January 23, 2026 at 2:15 AM
My view is that in cases of sex segregation the comparator's sex is immaterial to a claim for GR discrimination, broadly for the reasons stated in Croft.
It's worse than that, because as Robert Wintemute (of all people) pointed out, the termination of the employee in P v S could also be justified on the basis of sex neutral criteria and would not be directly discriminatory ("no employee, male or female, can transition from their birth sex").
January 23, 2026 at 2:07 AM
It's worse than that, because as Robert Wintemute (of all people) pointed out, the termination of the employee in P v S could also be justified on the basis of sex neutral criteria and would not be directly discriminatory ("no employee, male or female, can transition from their birth sex").
As an Australian who is used to having Brits (often rightly) look down on our politics it is slightly jarring to see parliament ripping itself apart over a pretty milquetoast assisted dying scheme that has been working well here for a while now. I realise this is difficult for people, but come on.
January 22, 2026 at 10:25 PM
As an Australian who is used to having Brits (often rightly) look down on our politics it is slightly jarring to see parliament ripping itself apart over a pretty milquetoast assisted dying scheme that has been working well here for a while now. I realise this is difficult for people, but come on.
I'm afraid for many of us it would be either trot or cold war liberal (or both in succession).
January 22, 2026 at 9:12 PM
I'm afraid for many of us it would be either trot or cold war liberal (or both in succession).
Yugoslav wars is right, but I'm having fun thinking about the USSR's occupations of Hungary and Czechoslovakia
January 22, 2026 at 8:34 PM
Yugoslav wars is right, but I'm having fun thinking about the USSR's occupations of Hungary and Czechoslovakia
Grammatical but a little awkward (in my dialect of Australian English).
January 22, 2026 at 12:27 PM
Grammatical but a little awkward (in my dialect of Australian English).
In fairness, the question was phrased in a way that implied he thought FWS was wrongly decided.
January 22, 2026 at 9:55 AM
In fairness, the question was phrased in a way that implied he thought FWS was wrongly decided.
I recently read Ormrod's lecture to the Royal Society and it's more or less this with some infantile jokes.
January 22, 2026 at 9:10 AM
I recently read Ormrod's lecture to the Royal Society and it's more or less this with some infantile jokes.
What I find astonishing is that since it was handed down almost no one has tried to offer a rational defense or Corbett v Corbett. But it has shuffled on, zombie-like, through to today.
January 22, 2026 at 9:01 AM
What I find astonishing is that since it was handed down almost no one has tried to offer a rational defense or Corbett v Corbett. But it has shuffled on, zombie-like, through to today.
He was asking whether Labour would "comply" with FWS in the Lord's not so long ago!
January 22, 2026 at 8:56 AM
He was asking whether Labour would "comply" with FWS in the Lord's not so long ago!
Sorry that's his language not mine, "transsexualism" ought to have been in scare quotes.
January 22, 2026 at 8:54 AM
Sorry that's his language not mine, "transsexualism" ought to have been in scare quotes.
Argh I've lost it, but it's in the chapter on homosexuality and transsexualism. I can find it when I'm back at my desk.
January 22, 2026 at 8:53 AM
Argh I've lost it, but it's in the chapter on homosexuality and transsexualism. I can find it when I'm back at my desk.
Yes. He's talking about the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and arguing for a trans-inclusive reading of sex. I'll find the page ref hang on.
January 22, 2026 at 8:48 AM
Yes. He's talking about the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and arguing for a trans-inclusive reading of sex. I'll find the page ref hang on.
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).